Also In The News

[MC Prussian]

Meanwhile, China continues to crack down on its Uighur (muslim) population:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-repression-uighurs-xinjiang

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Anne Sacoolas apologizes:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7573341/Diplomats-wife-Anne-Sacoolas-breaks-silence-fireball-crash-killed-Brit-Harry-Dunn.html

 

And now for justice.

Hopefully so, yes.

 

4 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Meanwhile, China continues to crack down on its Uighur (muslim) population:

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-repression-uighurs-xinjiang

Yeah, when your religion is the Party you tend to get a theocracy anyway.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50052855

 

...is this Bolton feeling he's bailed out before things hit the ground?

[MC Prussian]

Apparently, 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made, yes?

Then 100% of all Hollywood union members agree Trump is the devil, yes?

https://deadline.com/2019/10/sag-aftra-convention-unanimously-approves-press-freedom-resolution-aimed-at-donald-trump-1202758542/

 

Even if it's just 400 out of a grand total of 160'000 union members. Well, it's all about how you frame the numbers.

 

Oh, and yes - fear China:

 

 

[leicsmac]

On topic, I mentioned this on the Blizzard thread but I'll repeat it here: it's both funny and sad at the same time to see the usual suspects (no one on here, elsewhere) going on about "OMGZ REPRESSIVE COMMIE CHINA" (even if the first part is true) when what is happening here is one of the purest examples of competitive capitalist behaviour possible: China showing its market power and Blizzard and Hollywood among others not wanting Chinese citizens to vote with their wallets and lose that sweet $$$.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, MC Prussian said:

Apparently, 97% of scientists agree that climate change is man-made, yes?

Then 100% of all Hollywood union members agree Trump is the devil, yes?

https://deadline.com/2019/10/sag-aftra-convention-unanimously-approves-press-freedom-resolution-aimed-at-donald-trump-1202758542/

 

Even if it's just 400 out of a grand total of 160'000 union members. Well, it's all about how you frame the numbers.

Yesterday you wanted us to listen to the "climate scientists" instead of scientists in general and now you're back to slagging the 97% figure which is based entirely on academic peer reviewed research by.... drumroll please... "climate scientists"!

 

Btw I'm unsure what your point about Trump being the devil is?  I just see an article about backing freedom of the press?

[MC Prussian]

14 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yesterday you wanted us to listen to the "climate scientists" instead of scientists in general and now you're back to slagging the 97% figure which is based entirely on academic peer reviewed research by.... drumroll please... "climate scientists"!

 

Btw I'm unsure what your point about Trump being the devil is?  I just see an article about backing freedom of the press?

I believe we ought to hand more power to scientists, but in an unbiased, neutral, objective environment, as far away from the influence of media and politics as possible.

 

What would it take to reconsider your stance on the 97% myth?

 

We have to ask ourselves: "97% of what exactly?"

 

I've mentioned this in the other thread. The 97% figure is an amalgamate of (as far as I can tell) four different studies, all of them with a respective flaw.

The first one (Oreskes, 2004) is based on 928 papers, 25% expressed ACC explicitly, 50% implicitly

Quote

primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts.

In this case, the 97% are not accurate. The percentage is (way) lower.

 

The second one, Zimmerman and Doran (2009), was in effect based on a two-question questionnaire and responses from a meagre 79 scientists, 77 of which agreed with both questions. 77 scientists do not represent the scientific community on the whole. More than 10'000 scientists were asked, and only 3'000 responded initially.

 

The third and probably most referred one, Cook et al. (2013), is based on submitted papers (not scientists), and out of 12'000 papers submitted, only a max of 2 to 3 percent indicated that anthropogenic influence was the sole driver for global warming.

Quote

Cook assumes any paper that implied that humans had some effect on climate is included in the consensus, even if the GHGs referenced in the study are said to have little effect. This is nothing like the IPCC’s declaration.

 

Quote

The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content

In 2016, Cook tried it again:

Quote

... the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position.

In conclusion:

Quote

An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here.

...

The conclusions of the IPCC are the other most often cited support for anthropogenic climate change. These conclusions are consensus results of a committee with thousands of contributors. Although this is often viewed as a monolithic conclusion, the nature of committee processes makes it virtually certain that there are varying degrees of agreement, similar to what was shown in the Bray and von Storch survey. The Union of Concerned Scientists says of the IPCC process “it would be clearly unrealistic to aim for unanimous agreement on every aspect of the report.” Perhaps this is a subject for another day.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#513987d31157

The 97% claim is false, in particular in the shape of "97% of scientists agree". Papers, not scientists. The true number lies anywhere between 40 and 85 percent, depending on what studies you refer to and what parameters you include. In any case, you'll get a wide array of opinions and in the end, it boils down to "scientists believe that some of the global warming is caused by mankind".

 

To finish this off, and here I'll make the bridge to the SAG statement:

400 people "unanimously" signing a paper declaring Trump to be the devil in disguise ("he who shall not be named") is equally misleading. These 400 do not represent the vast majority of people they claim to speak for. 400 out of 160'000 members equals 0,25%.

The paper speaks of "freedom of press" alright, but does not hold the press accountable to a higher, more objective standard. The way I see it is that they simply don't tolerate criticism from the outside, insofar as being called out (for not being objective enough).

 

Let's see through the deceptive maneuvres. Consensus is all about context.

Edited 16 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[Wymsey]

Didn't know that the BBC's Bill Turnbull has advanced prostrate cancer..

Think he's one of the best presenters the BBC has had in more recent times.

[leicsmac]

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

 

Whoa. You don't say.

[Trav Le Bleu]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

 

Whoa. You don't say.

Too much emphasis on pieces of paper and letters after your name (which are easier to get if you have money or privilege), rather than actual ability and capability.

 

There's as many clever poor people in the world as there are stupid rich ones.

Edited 16 October 2019 by Trav Le Bleu

[Carl the Llama]

19 hours ago, MattP said:

When did Trump use the video?

When did he condemn it? Man can't help himself having petty pops at dead former POW senators and their family but stays mute on his soapbox over this?  Nah my info was initially wrong but he's still garbage.

[Guest MattP]

On 15/10/2019 at 08:46, Carl the Llama said:

Trump tied it to Trump by using the video. Unbelievable gymnastics Jeff. 

 

19 hours ago, MattP said:

When did Trump use the video?

 

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

When did he condemn it? Man can't help himself having petty pops at dead former POW senators and their family but stays mute on his soapbox over this?  Nah my info was initially wrong but he's still garbage.

So he didn't use then?  He just didn't condemn it.

 

Unbelievable gymnastics Jeff indeed.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, MattP said:

 

 

So he didn't use then?  He just didn't condemn it.

 

Unbelievable gymnastics Jeff indeed.

Sorry mum, I'll do better at running how this world shares information in future.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Sorry mum, I'll do better at running how this world shares information in future.

You are usually one of the posters who takes care with fact though, that's what is sad.

 

The issue is Trump derangement syndrome, when a lot of people talk, criticise or debate on Trump they just totally lose sight of reason or fact and this is a prime example of it. 

[MC Prussian]

20 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

When did he condemn it? Man can't help himself having petty pops at dead former POW senators and their family but stays mute on his soapbox over this?  Nah my info was initially wrong but he's still garbage.

Ok, so you don't like Orange Man. Okay. Many people do the same, and that's perfectly legitimate. I don't like Trump as a person, either. I don't have to. I see he has many flaws, he is not perfect, who is?

But by your own token, then you're admitting you're aiming at the person and not the package. Messenger before message.

If I had the chance, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2016, but voting for him was the lesser evil than voting for Hillary Clinton. And not voting could be seen as a bit of a betrayal of democracy (or in the US's case, the republic). If you have the choice between cholera and the bubonic plague, which one do you pick?

 

I've said shitty things in my personal life, Obama has said shitty things on occasion, Bill Clinton has said shitty things, Bush (Jr. or Sr.) has, aso. I don't care as much about that as I care about their policies.

Obama is a fantastic orator, he was a charismatic president, doesn't change the fact that he made many, many mistakes during his eight-year tenure.

 

This Trump bashing has become a redundant show for the sake of the show, just like the US and many liberal media outlets over here in Europe are treating Trump. Instead of talking, examining and criticizing his politics, they play the man way too often.

Which is nothing but shallow claptrap. It serves nothing but to keep the ratings up, entertain oneself and people living in the same bubble and we're not advancing one bit, instead remaining in a hamster wheel, an endless loop forever.

I wish we could overcome this charade and manage to get back on track and discuss more important issues in life and politics again.

 

The media bias will only become more prominent should Trump be elected a second time (which I think he will; not because I'd want him to be re-elected, but because the Democratic candidates are either bland, corrupt or incompetent as ****).

Edited 16 October 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

You are usually one of the posters who takes care with fact though, that's what is sad.

 

The issue is Trump derangement syndrome, when a lot of people talk, criticise or debate on Trump they just totally lose sight of reason or fact and this is a prime example of it. 

14 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Ok, so you don't like Orange Man. Okay. Many people do the same, and that's perfectly legitimate. I don't like Trump as a person, either. I don't have to. I see he has many flaws, he is not perfect, who is?

But by your own token, then you're admitting you're aiming at the person and not the package. Messenger before message.

If I had the chance, I wouldn't have voted for him in 2016, but voting for him was the lesser evil than voting for Hillary Clinton. And not voting could be seen as a bit of a betrayal of democracy (or in the US's case, the republic). If you have the choice between cholera and the bubonic plague, which one do you pick?

 

I've said shitty things in my personal life, Obama has said shitty things on occasion, Bill Clinton has said shitty things, Bush (Jr. or Sr.) has, aso. I don't care as much about that as I care about their policies.

Obama is a fantastic orator, he was a charismatic president, doesn't change the fact that he made many, many mistakes during his eight-year tenure.

 

This Trump bashing has become a redundant show for the sake of the show, just like the US and many liberal media outlets over here in Europe are treating Trump. Instead of talking, examining and criticizing his politics, they play the man way too often.

Which is nothing but shallow claptrap. It serves nothing but to keep the ratings up, entertain oneself and people living in the same bubble and we're not advancing one bit, instead remaining in a hamster wheel, an endless loop forever.

I wish we could overcome this charade and manage to get back on track and discuss more important issues in life and politics again.

 

The media bias will only become more prominent should Trump be elected a second time (which I think he will; not because I'd want him to be re-elected, but because the Democratic candidates are either bland, corrupt or incompetent as ****).

And yet this story aside there's still more than enough factual evidence to suggest this is a corrupt regime.  Some guy who makes yogurts made a report about it but the Supreme Orange immediately got his team spreading legitimately fake news about the contents.  This one actually poorly reported story doesn't blow away all the smoke around the most corrupt presidency since Nixon.  Would a Hillary presidency have been worse?  In the first few months of Trump I was arguing it was a shame but it was much of a muchness between how poor each outcome would be.  Now I really don't see how anyone can seriously think that.  He's drained the swamp of all its redeeming factors to leave a stagnant bog.

Edited 16 October 2019 by Carl the Llama

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

Would a Hillary presidency have been worse?  In the first few months of Trump I was arguing it was much of a muchness between how poor the outcome would be but now I'm really don't see how anyone can seriously think that.  He's drained the swamp of all its redeeming factors to leave a stagnant bog.

Who knows? We could be at war with Russia in Syria now had she done so.

 

Although it would have been absolutely hilarious after Epstein's suicide, imagine the conversation about why the most high profile peadophile in the USA had a picture of the "first gentlemen" on his wall in a dress

[Carl the Llama]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Who knows? We could be at war with Russia in Syria now had she done so.

 

Although it would have been absolutely hilarious after Epstein's suicide, imagine the conversation about why the most high profile peadophile in the USA had a picture of the "first gentlemen" on his wall in a dress

I imagine it would go very similar to all the current conversations about the sitting President of the USA's connections to Epstein where one side thinks it's obvious and shameful while the other goes to great lengths to play it down.  Imagine the response from Trump's base if Epstein got clearly assassinated in a high security facility on Hillary's watch.  It's a shame the powers let it happen, they'll never give up their rich paedo buddies.

Edited 16 October 2019 by Carl the Llama

[leicsmac]

5 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Too much emphasis on pieces of paper and letters after your name (which are easier to get if you have money or privilege), rather than actual ability and capability.

 

There's as many clever poor people in the world as there are stupid rich ones.

Agreed.

 

It's good to see yet another puncture to the "work hard, always or often get rewarded appropriately" Just World Fallacy that some folks like to push, though.

[MC Prussian]

14 hours ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610395/if-youre-so-smart-why-arent-you-rich-turns-out-its-just-chance/

 

Whoa. You don't say.

Depends on what you consider to be "rich", how you define the term, what amount/levels of income or savings that'd include.

The title here is a bit misleading, as it can evoke feelings of social injustice or whatever you want to call it.

 

It's been pretty much obvious for such a long time that the biggest part of the money in the world is not being earned, but inherited, passed on from one generation to another.

 

I'm just not sure what argument you'd want to have here, though - can I be smart and happy with "only" 50k, 100k or 200k a year or should I be envious of millionaires and billionaires for the rest of my life? How much "rich" is enough? And who defines the parameters?

Not everyone can or wants to be a millionaire.

At some point, it becomes a pointless thought experiment.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Depends on what you consider to be "rich", how you define the term, what amount/levels of income or savings that'd include.

The title here is a bit misleading, as it can evoke feelings of social injustice or whatever you want to call it.

 

It's been pretty much obvious for such a long time that the biggest part of the money in the world is not being earned, but inherited, passed on from one generation to another.

 

I'm just not sure what argument you'd want to have here, though - can I be smart and happy with "only" 50k, 100k or 200k a year or should I be envious of millionaires and billionaires for the rest of my life? How much "rich" is enough? And who defines the parameters?

Not everyone can or wants to be a millionaire.

At some point, it becomes a pointless thought experiment.

 

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Agreed.

 

It's good to see yet another puncture to the "work hard, always or often get rewarded appropriately" Just World Fallacy that some folks like to push, though.

That's pretty much what my point was tbh. Of course the idea of "rich" is subjective based on where you are and the numbers, but I simply take issue with the fallacy that people like to push whereas there is some kind of cosmic justice that consistently rewards the smart and hard-working and punishes the opposite rather than it all or most of it being...well, down to luck.

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

That's pretty much what my point was tbh. Of course the idea of "rich" is subjective based on where you are and the numbers, but I simply take issue with the fallacy that people like to push whereas there is some kind of cosmic justice that consistently rewards the smart and hard-working and punishes the opposite rather than it all or most of it being...well, down to luck.

Well, you'd have to be more precise what you mean by negating the "work hard, always or often get rewarded appropriately" slogan, and what you mean by "smart".

As of right now, the whole point is a zero-sum game, with no specific input resulting in no particular output.

 

In the end it IS all subjective, you can be smart and be rewarded with a decent salary that still makes you happy, whether that's down to chance or not. And the higher in the hierarchy you climb, the better the prospects.

Meanwhile, you can be smart and earn less (in the case of part-time work) and have a better quality of life (if you can afford to live a rather modest life).

Numbers don't do the situation full justice here.

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, you'd have to be more precise what you mean by negating the "work hard, always or often get rewarded appropriately" slogan, and what you mean by "smart".

As of right now, the whole point is a zero-sum game, with no specific input resulting in no particular output.

 

In the end it IS all subjective, you can be smart and be rewarded with a decent salary that still makes you happy, whether that's down to chance or not. And the higher in the hierarchy you climb, the better the prospects.

Meanwhile, you can be smart and earn less (in the case of part-time work) and have a better quality of life (if you can afford to live a rather modest life).

Numbers don't do the situation full justice here.

I'm not entirely sure how much clearer I can be, but:

 

Some people believe in the idea that if you are hard-working, smart, or a combination of the two, it is possible to work your way to a very prosperous life and (this is the important part) this has a high probability of happening. I have believed for the longest time that this is fallacious and that hard-working and smart people arise to a prosperous standard of living at a rate a little higher than those who are not, but nowhere near to a degree of certainty or even probability. Luck (being in the right place at the right time, for instance) and nepotism brought about by connections not needed to be made by a person (or at least with minimal effort) have far more of a effect on lifting someone to prosperity than either hard work or level of intelligence.

 

Put it this way: If that particular Just World Fallacy was true the creator of Grumpy Cat would be pulling double shifts at whatever her job was and both scientists and a lot of women in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America would be insanely rich.

 

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Agreed.

 

It's good to see yet another puncture to the "work hard, always or often get rewarded appropriately" Just World Fallacy that some folks like to push, though.

Basically, it's a carrot dangled by stupid rich people.

 

A classic example is in the arts, or at least, it's more obvious, whereby famous people can break into other fields; for instance comedians becoming singers or models becoming (sigh) novelists and being very successful despite not actually being all that good.

 

Just a pet peeve as a frustrated novelist

 

Perhaps I should just "work harder", as opposed to creatively different (oh how those masses want more-of-the-same).

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

 

Put it this way: If that particular Just World Fallacy was true the creator of Grumpy Cat would be pulling double shifts at whatever her job was and both scientists and a lot of women in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America would be insanely rich.

 

 

All those immensely rich coal miners, firemen, nurses, fishermen... what? They're not rich?

 

Lazy sods!