mistercwood

Even worse, if you pop along to place like r/conservative and the like, a considerable number of Republican voters consider him a very viable candidate for 2024...

Everyone knows it's only a Climate Agreement if it's from the Champagne region of France, otherwise it's just Sparkling Greenie Plans.

You jest (and apologies if this was already your inspiration), buuuuut....

Difficult jobs are refreshingly easy if you just don't ever do the difficult parts.

For the purposes of their calculations, they're using two sets of data and referring to them both as comorbidities, when realistically only one is and the other would be more accurately called pre-existing conditions (in lay terms). For Covid comorbidities, they're using the WILDLY misinterpreted data that "only" 6% of Covid fatalities didn't have other issues - this has been debunked/clarified endlessly but still keeps doing the rounds. The problem here is that firstly, there is no consistent reporting method - doc's write down what they want to on the COD. If you're perfectly healthy, get Covid, end up in the ICU and the develop ARDS and Pneumonia before you die, it is valid and common for all of those to be listed on your death certificate, even if none of the rest would have happened without Covid. The authors are then comparing those stats against CDC data for general risk factors in the population for conditions like Obesity and Diabetes, then making formulas that gloss over the fundamental difference between this data set and the Covid fatality set. The first thing they build their conclusion from is the CDC Covid fatality data, without understanding where that data comes from. It's not a reliable model.

That entire article is premised on a fundamental misunderstanding of: How comorbidities are different to pre-existing conditions That there are not just two binary outcomes from a Covid infection - dead or 100% a-ok There's probably other flaws but those are the two most glaring ones. I look forward to the day you provide a source for your positions that doesn't completely fail to do what you think it does. EDIT: You know what, this is actually completely fucking ridiculous. We're a year into this thing and we still have people basing their risk factors on pretending that you're only capable of transmitting this thing if you're sick. It's not just about you.

For anyone curious, Obama's extremely high clemency figures are due to his admin actively promoting the clemency program to those who could be eligible. There were still high barriers to entry (e.g. non-violent, first-time offenses, model prisoners, often serving sentences that didn't reflect normal sentences for the same crime, etc etc) so it's not like they were letting drug-fiends and rapists out onto the street. It was just a matter of making sure people knew that they had a chance, and then the applications came.

I absolutely concede that one can do that, but it's not how it's phrased and it's very much not the framing the author is using to reinforce their agenda. Dan is framing any liberal reaction as emotionally based (or worse, as virtue signaling theatre), and the conservative one as rational and reality-based. The message he is trying to instill in the reader is that any liberal reaction cannot be based in reason, and vice versa that the conservative view always will be - this is not only false, it's just plain fucking dumb. It would be just as dumb for me to say that conservatives are incapable of empathy. He's doing this to lend weight to his fallacious conclusion that lockdowns don't work. They do, if you have leadership that's willing to do the hard work and a populace who are willing to take up their share of the responsibility. The bigger takeaway question here really should be - why was America lacking in both?

The entire tone of the piece - which is also outright stated in a few places - is that conservatives are rational and courageous, and that liberals are emotional and fearful. And that the conservative view is better. My favourite ironic two-fer, from the same paragraph and separated by a single sentence:

While he should get the book thrown at him just like anyone else who was there, he's considered a joke by pretty much anyone from the BLM side of things. I've seen tweets going back for mooooonths from organisers explicitly calling him out for trying to incite shit and take things over, and telling basically anyone who'll listen to keep him the fuck away from events. He's definitely aligned himself with leftists for his grift, but that's all it's ever been - 100% grift and attempts to build his brand.

^^ again, logic dictates that an upswing in new gun owners who have more left-leaning tendencies is not going to be a response to Biden.

I'll pay it, you gave me a chuckle.

Seconded. I was very much a circus kid in my teens and the primary reason it never turned into a career is just how much hard damned work is involved.

There's so many strawmen in that post I'm inclined to report you to the Fire Department for creating a safety hazard... From the top: I didn't move a thing. Brent used a hacky critique of a climate model to say "Ha! Those idiots predicted these numbers and those numbers never happened!". I looked at the model. It was their worst case scenario, with specific assumptions built in. Those assumptions did not end up eventuating in the real world. Ergo, the model predictions also did not match the real world. Because, you know. That's how science works. I'm not saying either way whether catastrophic predictions are right or wrong. I'm merely saying that that specific scenario from that specific model did not pan out as expected, because peoples behaviours changed and consequently the underlying assumptions of the model were not met. And that it's fucking stupid for Brent to use it as an indictment of the scientific method. Switching to renewables won't destroy the economy. Fossil fuels are viable because we spent a century investing in them and continue to prop them up. Renewables will do just as well with the same drive behind them. PS I'm generally pro-nuke and am annoyed it's a complete non-starter here when it could potentially help the transition move along. I don't however know enough about the real world risk/reward so I don't tend to talk about it.

Because I can read. If all other factors remained equal, you'd have a point - but they didn't. Your source explicitly calls out that the model assumed an ongoing increase in CFC outputs. They didn't increase. The underlying assumptions of the model were not met, ergo it failing to meet predictions is an expected outcome. Again - if the model was only relying on CO2 as a factor for the predictions, you would have a solid point. It didn't, so you don't.

I honestly can't tell at this point if you're trolling or genuinely can't see where you're failing at fundamental logic.

So the study and prediction did in fact take into account factors that we know now were massively curbed, starting from when the paper was published. From there, an observer has two choices: Acknowledge that this is probably the biggest reason why the BAU prediction didn't match reality. Because it's perfectly logical. Then move on. Use this to attack the prediction as dumb, even though it's internally logically consistent. Your source chose option two. Cos - once again - they're hacks.

Ok so output went up. Did we (globally) take other measures/actions to offset that in any way at all or is that a net increase? Did the prediction you're laughing at factor in a continuous increase in outputs that were more excessive than the reality? Were there other underlying assumptions at work that didn't pan out and would affect the outcomes vs prediction? You know. Context. I went and looked at your sources by the way, in case I could get this info myself. Holy shit dude. That page was like Buzzfeed but with no budget or design flair. Single graphs and newspaper clippings, no sources, no context, just "haha aren't warmists dumb haha!"... Once again, I regret engaging you on the guaranteed topic that you will never, ever, ever approach in good faith.

It's finally occurred to me that the reason you love these things as "evidence" is that you never, ever factor in that they're almost always based on things proceeding business-as-usual. Pretty sure behaviours have changed a wee bit over the last 34 years. Might've changed the outcome a smidge.

These are frequently the same kind of people who still proudly wave Confederate flags. Might want to ponder on that for a few.

Is there a particular passage you're using to back this claim up? As best I can tell, there is nothing to indicate they knew anything of right and wrong until *after* they ate the fruit.

It's not nonsense, it's basic reasoning and logic. The concepts of good and evil did not exist for Adam and Eve prior to eating the fruit. They had to eat the fruit in order to gain the knowledge that disobedience of a command from God was wrong - it was basically entrapment to be honest. Anyone who has done basic theological studies will have come across this paradox, and the appropriate resolution - that the eating of the fruit is a parable about boundaries and obeying God, not a literal recounting of events. Most of Genesis is in this vein, separating light from dark, the land from the seas etc is simply setting and reinforcing boundaries. If it was the latter case and a literal retelling of events, by definition it would make God a right prick.

Interestingly enough it was never really a choice. Logically, until we ate the fruit we didn't know that disobeying God was a bad thing. It's irrelevant that he said "Don't", all actions were morally equivalent up until *after* the fruit was consumed and the relevant knowledge was acquired.

Stop dodging, Trigirl's right and you know it. Marjorie Taylor Greene openly supported QAnon throughout her campaign - a movement already declared a domestic terror threat by the FBI - and got elected to the House under a Republican banner. The standard you allow is the standard you set.