Vaccine

[dad4]

You just demonstrated the strength of de-centralized "reporting" such as X and blogs. You added context, and you were clear in how you evaluated the statement.

To your specific point, many of the "facts checks" were blatantly incorrect - well beyond implying an interpretation of a word (includes) that is within its definition. If examples such as yours were the only thing we had to deal with from our representatives, the FBI, the CIA, the legacy media, etc., they would all be much more respected. They have all earned the scorn they get - and more.

You tried very hard to twist the comment into much more than it is. The term "includes" does not mean "likely", "common", etc. It absolutely does not imply that it is the only possible interpretation. It just doesn't. I have clear memories of how much leeway you gave an article from CNN that did much more. It misinterpreted definitions and data, but you gave them a pass because they included some version of "you should wear masks".

Is there actually any evidence to support a link between wind farms and whale extinctions? Or is your author trying to use a couple weasel words to imply a link which isn’t really there?

Making allowances for weasel words is a cheat. If that is permitted, then the author could be a pimply faced 40 year old in his mom’s basement copying things he found on Breitbart.

See, it’s all ok because I said “could be”.

Similarly, you are a mammal. An example of a mammal is a mangy orangutan with severe diarrhea.

True? Yes. Helpful? No.

Where does it end? At some point, there is a standard of evidence, and we should respect those who don’t speak until they actually have some basis, but not those who don’t.

There are examples on all sides of both. The covid “hurricane” was an example of speaking rashly. Imperial College’s 2.2 M prediction was an example of speaking appropriately. Therefore, we should respect future IC predictions and discount future statements from Osterholm.

 

[Grace T.]

Is there actually any evidence to support a link between wind farms and whale extinctions? Or is your author trying to use a couple weasel words to imply a link which isn’t really there?

Making allowances for weasel words is a cheat. If that is permitted, then the author could be a pimply faced 40 year old in his mom’s basement copying things he found on Breitbart.

See, it’s all ok because I said “could be”.

Similarly, you are a mammal. An example of a mammal is a mangy orangutan with severe diarrhea.

True? Yes. Helpful? No.

Where does it end? At some point, there is a standard of evidence, and we should respect those who don’t speak until they actually have some basis, but not those who don’t.

There are examples on all sides of both. The covid “hurricane” was an example of speaking rashly. Imperial College’s 2.2 M prediction was an example of speaking appropriately. Therefore, we should respect future IC predictions and discount future statements from Osterholm.

A logic argument on the soccer forum! How fun!

that word “respect” is awfully loaded especially given some of the authoritarian prescriptions that at a minimum tickled your fancy. In fact that word “respect” and what it means is the entire ball of wax in this argument. You are doing the same handwaiving over the difficult issue that you accuse the article (and kicking has conceded is done in that article) of doing with respect to extinctions.

further it does not logically follow that because ic got something right and osterholm got something wrong that the next time it will be the same (or more/less likely to be the same). That’s the coin flip fallacy (otherwise known as the come fallacy for craps players and it’s corollary the dont come fallacy). Your proof skips over the step of why they got it right/wrong and how that would impact future events. A geometry teacher would downgrade you for making assumptions and skipping over reasoning in your proof.

 

[watfly]

If global warming drops another 900 inches of snow on Alta and keeps Mammoth open until August 6 (like it did this year) then I'm a huge fan of global warming.

 

[watfly]

As predicted, hopefully it ends up not coming true.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

 

[Grace T.]

A logic argument on the soccer forum! How fun!

that word “respect” is awfully loaded especially given some of the authoritarian prescriptions that at a minimum tickled your fancy. In fact that word “respect” and what it means is the entire ball of wax in this argument. You are doing the same handwaiving over the difficult issue that you accuse the article (and kicking has conceded is done in that article) of doing with respect to extinctions.

further it does not logically follow that because ic got something right and osterholm got something wrong that the next time it will be the same (or more/less likely to be the same). That’s the coin flip fallacy (otherwise known as the come fallacy for craps players and it’s corollary the dont come fallacy). Your proof skips over the step of why they got it right/wrong and how that would impact future events. A geometry teacher would downgrade you for making assumptions and skipping over reasoning in your proof.

The come fallacy for those reading is the belief that because someone has a hot hand the dice will continue to be hot. The don’t come fallacy is the belief that because a hot hand has gone on for a long time on this roll it is due to crap out.

apes with diarrhea arguments can be useful. For example if you are trying to persuade someone to wear a seatbelt: if you don’t wear a seat belt you could have an accident and be thrown through the windshield. So long as we logically acknowledge that it doesn’t follow if you don’t wear a seatbelt you will be thrown through the window. The argument then turns of assessing risks and probabilities for which you need proper inputs (again where the math guys usually fail since they are obsessed with the process of the proof rather than questioning the given).

that’s why a marketplace of ideas is the best remedy for any misinformation rather than censorship. Have the discussion and have the argument weighted appropriately in each adults estimation.

 

[kickingandscreaming]

that’s why a marketplace of ideas is the best remedy for any misinformation rather than censorship. Have the discussion and have the argument weighted appropriately in each adults estimation.

Yes! But this only works if you believe each person is capable of coming to their own conclusion AND are willing to accept that another's conclusion may be different from your own conclusion. Those with an authoritarian, elitist bent have trouble with this - as we have seen during COVID. This will never give us "perfect" results. However, I'll gladly take these imperfections over the ones we see with centralized authority and a de-facto ministry of truth.

 

[dad4]

Well I just drove through Mesquite NV and its 116. But you know whats causing the heat? Its called summer, it happens every year. I thought the Today show had turned into the Weather Channel. No mention of the form 1023 that alleges Joe took a $5mm bribe on Burisma. Instead wall to wall coverage of it being hot in Phoenix.

Might want to do a quick Google search for summer high temperatures in Mesquite NV. 116 is a good ten degrees above what they usually hit in August.

If only we had people who study things like this....

(I know. The six of you are smarter than the scientists who have been studying this for the last half century. )

 

[dad4]

A logic argument on the soccer forum! How fun!

that word “respect” is awfully loaded especially given some of the authoritarian prescriptions that at a minimum tickled your fancy. In fact that word “respect” and what it means is the entire ball of wax in this argument. You are doing the same handwaiving over the difficult issue that you accuse the article (and kicking has conceded is done in that article) of doing with respect to extinctions.

further it does not logically follow that because ic got something right and osterholm got something wrong that the next time it will be the same (or more/less likely to be the same). That’s the coin flip fallacy (otherwise known as the come fallacy for craps players and it’s corollary the dont come fallacy). Your proof skips over the step of why they got it right/wrong and how that would impact future events. A geometry teacher would downgrade you for making assumptions and skipping over reasoning in your proof.

We have some ideas of why one was right and one was wrong:

IC was running a standard SIR model and publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.

Osterholm was skipping that process a MOnd talking directly to the press, apparently without bothering to do the modeling work.

Most geometry teachers would be just fine with that distinction. I'm respecting the quants and laughing at the administrators. No bias here.

 

[Grace T.]

We have some ideas of why one was right and one was wrong:

IC was running a standard SIR model and publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.

Osterholm was skipping that process a MOnd talking directly to the press, apparently without bothering to do the modeling work.

Most geometry teachers would be just fine with that distinction. I'm respecting the quants and laughing at the administrators. No bias here.

I point out further that the entire climate change movement is based on an ape with diarrhea argument. As Greta is constantly argue, they rush to the end of civilization and life on earth as we know it. It doesn’t follow. Outcomes range from mild adaptations offset with technology; to big adaptions with positives and negatives depending on where you live (Canada becomes more pleasant; the Marshall Islands go under water); to large scale economic disruption; to floods and famine: to end of civilization.

 

[espola]

I point out further that the entire climate change movement is based on an ape with diarrhea argument. As Greta is constantly argue, they rush to the end of civilization and life on earth as we know it. It doesn’t follow. Outcomes range from mild adaptations offset with technology; to big adaptions with positives and negatives depending on where you live (Canada becomes more pleasant; the Marshall Islands go under water); to large scale economic disruption; to floods and famine: to end of civilization.

So if we move the Marshall Islanders to Canada, it's all ok?

 

[watfly]

Might want to do a quick Google search for summer high temperatures in Mesquite NV. 116 is a good ten degrees above what they usually hit in August.

If only we had people who study things like this....

(I know. The six of you are smarter than the scientists who have been studying this for the last half century. )

As you may be aware, an average is based on a set of temperatures, both high and low. Is 116 outside a reasonable range? IDK, neither do you. Is the 116 because of global warming or just weather? IDK, neither do you. The point of my sarcasm, is that any weather anomaly is blamed on global warming. I think we have some global warming issues, but I don't believe in the global warming hysteria. The scientists you hold in such high esteem, many have been wrong about their dire global warming predictions. These dire predictions are being used to in an attempt to implement a "green new deal" which will do little to nothing to stop global warming and will only increase costs we pay for housing, vehicles, energy and many other things. I'm normally "a trust, but verify" type of guy, but science no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to stick with reality. Good luck with your blind faith in science.
"

 

[espola]

As you may be aware, an average is based on a set of temperatures, both high and low. Is 116 outside a reasonable range? IDK, neither do you. Is the 116 because of global warming or just weather? IDK, neither do you. The point of my sarcasm, is that any weather anomaly is blamed on global warming. I think we have some global warming issues, but I don't believe in the global warming hysteria. The scientists you hold in such high esteem, many have been wrong about their dire global warming predictions. These dire predictions are being used to in an attempt to implement a "green new deal" which will do little to nothing to stop global warming and will only increase costs we pay for housing, vehicles, energy and many other things. I'm normally "a trust, but verify" type of guy, but science no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to stick with reality. Good luck with your blind faith in science.
"

Something I read on the web recently -- this will be the first society to fail because success was not cost-effective.

 

[dad4]

As you may be aware, an average is based on a set of temperatures, both high and low. Is 116 outside a reasonable range? IDK, neither do you. Is the 116 because of global warming or just weather? IDK, neither do you. The point of my sarcasm, is that any weather anomaly is blamed on global warming. I think we have some global warming issues, but I don't believe in the global warming hysteria. The scientists you hold in such high esteem, many have been wrong about their dire global warming predictions. These dire predictions are being used to in an attempt to implement a "green new deal" which will do little to nothing to stop global warming and will only increase costs we pay for housing, vehicles, energy and many other things. I'm normally "a trust, but verify" type of guy, but science no longer gets the benefit of the doubt. I'm going to stick with reality. Good luck with your blind faith in science.
"

I'm well aware of the statistics needed to answer whether 116 is or is not within the normal range of temperature for August in NV.

I'm also aware that people who do this for a living say "no, these weather patterns are not normal. And this rate of melting isn't normal either."

That's not blind faith or hysteria. It is merely keeping my head out of the sand.

World is warming. Eventually, some regions will become submerged and others will become too hot to live in or to grow food.

You can face facts, or you can pretend this happens every summer. But it won't change whether it's a good idea to buy a beach house on a barrier island.

 

[watfly]

Something I read on the web recently -- this will be the first society to fail because success was not cost-effective.

Did you read it in the same place you read about Florida's deaths pre and post booster? It's a cute sentiment, but virtually meaningless. Our problem today is not that were making "cost-effective" decisions, the problem is that were not making "cost-effective" decisions. Exhibits A and B are the extended closures of schools during covid and the restrictions on medical treatment during Covid.

 

[watfly]

That's not blind faith or hysteria. It is merely keeping my head out of the sand.

Actually continuing to believe dire predictions after most them haven't come true is blind faith. Science has been corrupted by politics and arrogance.

So we had drought level precipitation in many parts of the West during winter/spring of 2021-2022. It was blamed on global warming. Winter 2022-23 we had unprecedented record precipitation and snowfall. It was blamed on global warming.

Are both correct, maybe (global warming scientists blame all weather extremes on global warming), but it seems to defy logic. I'm sticking with logic and reality as opposed to science that has been infected by outside influences.

 

[espola]

Actually continuing to believe dire predictions after most them haven't come true is blind faith. Science has been corrupted by politics and arrogance.

So we had drought level precipitation in many parts of the West during winter/spring of 2021-2022. It was blamed on global warming. Winter 2022-23 we had unprecedented record precipitation and snowfall. It was blamed on global warming.

Are both correct, maybe (global warming scientists blame all weather extremes on global warming), but it seems to defy logic. I'm sticking with logic and reality as opposed to science that has been infected by outside influences.

Ah, yes -- a perfect statement of your position.

Please continue.

 

[watfly]

Eventually, some regions will become submerged and others will become too hot to live in or to grow food.

The primary theory behind submerging regions is a 20ft rise in sea level. According to NASA, since July 1993, sea levels have risen 93.8 mm, or 3.13 mm per year with a very straight trendline. At that rate, it would take over 1,900 years to reach 20 feet. Fortunately for you, you want have to worry about drowning with your head in the sand because the water isn't going to make it that high in your lifetime.

 

[Slobodan]

Might want to do a quick Google search for summer high temperatures in Mesquite NV. 116 is a good ten degrees above what they usually hit in August.

If only we had people who study things like this....

(I know. The six of you are smarter than the scientists who have been studying this for the last half century. )

I'm still waiting for Espola Fudd to name some climate change deniers. Do you know of any?

 

[espola]

The primary theory behind submerging regions is a 20ft rise in sea level. According to NASA, since July 1993, sea levels have risen 93.8 mm, or 3.13 mm per year with a very straight trendline. At that rate, it would take over 1,900 years to reach 20 feet. Fortunately for you, you want have to worry about drowning with your head in the sand because the water isn't going to make it that high in your lifetime.

Why should anyone listen to your opinions on science matters given the content of your last post?

 

[Slobodan]

So if we move the Marshall Islanders to Canada, it's all ok?

Obama cried about rising seas and subsequently bought a $12M island that's 43' above sea level. You think he's a believer, Fudd?

 

[watfly]

The come fallacy for those reading is the belief that because someone has a hot hand the dice will continue to be hot. The don’t come fallacy is the belief that because a hot hand has gone on for a long time on this roll it is due to crap out.

And if you bet the "don't come" you are anti-social and won't make any friends at the table.