While we're on the subject of blaming. I blame the Irish for making Brexit needlessly complicated. So there's that. :yum:

I never heard of a leaker trap but what you described is a canary trap. Either it's the same thing, or leaker trap isn't a thing.

That's the canary trap.

You're not talking about immortality but longevity. The latter is not going to protect you from deadly viral or bacterial infections, so yeah, you gonna die. That's also the reason we better continue to cure "regular" diseases because otherwise longevity research will just be a waste as nobody can enjoy its full potential otherwise. Not that I'm looking forward to people who had a 1000 years to practice their cynicism.

Bloomberg needs to die. He's seriously trying to buy the presidency. At least Trump managed on popularity with republicans, however misplaced.

What about it? It's totally irrelevant Obama was smarter then Trump is. Doesn't make Trump honest, he's still corrupt.

Showers? You mean running water in general. Also, no central heating so bring that extra sweater.

Yeah, I noticed that later and forgot to correct it. I started writing the initial post by searching for him on the IPCC website and couldn't find him at all.

Your complaints about the IPCC are attacks on the messenger as well. You don't want to talk climate change because the evidence for it is overwhelming. So instead you suggest the IPCC cannot be trusted, which has absolutely zero bearing on the veracity of the results of climate science. All the more funny when you do it by quoting someone who believes climate change is real and doesn't support your view of the IPCC.

the paper: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/215646136_Climate_change_What_do_we_know_about_the_IPCC

The relevant paragraph that doesn't say what nolife wants it to say :

Consensus and Uncertainty

Since its origins, the IPCC has been open and explicit about seeking to generate a ‘scientific consensus’ around climate change and especially about the role of humans in climate change. Yet this has been a source of both strength and vulnerability for the IPCC. Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production’) which marginalises dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics (see Edwards & Schneider, 2001; Petersen, 2010) – does not do justice to the process. Consensus-building in fact serves several different goals. As Horst and Irwin (2010) have explained, seeking consensus can be as much about building a community identity – what Haas (1992) refers to as an epistemic community – as it is about seeking the ‘truth’. Equally, as Yearley (2009) explains, IPCC consensus-making is an exercise in collective judgement about subjective (or Bayesian) likelihoods in areas of uncertain knowledge. Consensus-making in the IPCC has been largely driven by the desire to communicate climate science coherently to a wide spectrum of policy users – ‘to construct knowledge’ (Weingart, 1999) - but in so doing communicating uncertainties have been down-played (van der Sluijs, 1998). As Oppenheimer et al. (2007: 1506) remark: “The establishment of consensus by the IPCC is no longer as critical to governments as [is] a full exploration of uncertainty.” Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism. Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensusmaking can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise? Many glaciologists and oceanographers think they were (Kerr, 2007; Rahmstorf, 2010), leading to what Hansen attacks as ‘scientific reticence’. Solomon et al. (2008) offer a robust defence, stating that far from reaching a premature consensus, the AR4 report stated that in fact no consensus could be reached on the magnitude of the possible fast ice-sheet melt processes that some fear could lead to 1 or 2 metres of sea-level rise this century. Hence these processes were not included in the quantitative estimates. This leads onto the question of how uncertainty more generally has been treated across the various IPCC Working Groups. As Ha-Duong et al. (2007) and Swart et al. (2009) explain, despite efforts by the IPCC leadership to introduce a consistent methodology for uncertainty communication (Moss & Schneider, 2000; Manning, 2006), it has in fact been impossible to police. Different Working Groups, familiar and comfortable with different epistemic traditions, construct and communicate uncertainty in different ways. This opens up possibilities for confusion and misunderstanding not just for policy-makers and the public, but among the experts within the IPCC itself (Risbey & Kandlikar, 2007). For Ha-Duong et al. (2007) this diversity is an advantage: “The diverse, multidimensional approach to uncertainty communication used by IPCC author teams is not only legitimate, but enhances the quality of the assessment by providing information about the nature of the uncertainties” (p.10). This position reflects that of others who have thought hard about how best to construct uncertainty for policy-relevant assessments (Van der Sluijs, 2005; Van der Sluijs et al., 2005). For these authors ‘taming the uncertainty monster’ requires combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model-based environmental assessment: the so-called NUSAP (Numerical, Unit, Spread, Assessment, Pedigrees) System (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1990). Webster (2009) agrees with regard to the IPCC: “Treatment of uncertainty will become more important than consensus if the IPCC is to stay relevant to the decisions that face us” (p.39). Yet Webster also argues that such diverse forms of uncertainty assessment will require much more careful explanation abouthow different uncertainty metrics are reached; for example the difference between frequentist and Bayesian probabilities and the necessity of expert, and therefore subjective, judgements in any assessment process (see also Hulme, 2009a; Guy & Estrada, 2010). This suggests that more studies such as Petersen’s detailed investigation of the claim about detection and attribution in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Petersen, 2010; see also 2000 and 2006) are to be welcomed. He examines the crafting of this statement in both scientific and policy contexts, explores the way in which the IPCC mobilised Bayesian beliefs and how outside review comments were either resisted or embraced. While he concludes that the IPCC writing team did a reasonable job of reflecting the state of knowledge in this specific area, he is also critical of the inconsistencies and ambiguities in the ways the IPCC, more broadly, handled and presented uncertainty (cf. Swart et al., 2009). Betz (2009) offers a second example of a detailed case study of how the IPCC constructs its knowledge claims, this time a more theoretical and methodological example. Betz contrasts two methodological principles which may guide the construction of the IPCC climate scenario range: modal inductivism and modal falsificationism. He argues that modal inductivism, the methodology implicitly underlying the IPCC assessments, is severely flawed and advocates a radical overhaul of the IPCC practice to embrace modal falsificationism. Equally important for the IPCC is how the uncertainties embedded in its knowledge claims are communicated and received more widely. This too is an area where scholars have been at work. Patt (2007) and Budescu et al. (2009) approach the question empirically and draw upon psychological theory to examine how different forms of uncertainty communication used by the IPCC – for example uncertainties deriving from model differences versus disagreements between experts – alter the perceived reception of respective knowledge claims. Patt (2007) found that these two framings of uncertainty did influence lay perceptions and Budescu et al. found respondents interpreted IPCC’s quantitative uncertainties in ways rather different from that intended by the Assessments. They both call for the social features of uncertainty to be attended to more carefully in future IPCC assessments and suggest some alternative formulations. Schenk and Lensink (2007) and Fogel (2005) examine more precise examples of uncertainty communication from IPCC assessments: uncertainty about future emissions of greenhouse gases and uncertainties in national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions. Schenk and Lensink (2007), for example, suggest improved communication of complex messages from the IPCC through clearer reasoning when communicating with nonscientists, making emissions scenarios explicitly normative and increasing stakeholder participation in scenario development. — Mike hulme

1. Mike Hulme was not and is not a lead author for the IPCC. 2. That quote is taken out of context.

The IPCC collects research over various fields. Climate researchers are specialised in sub-fields. What Mike actually said can be found in this paper, which you should read in its entirety. All in all, Mike is quite positive about the work the IPCC has done. He's certainly not a climate skeptic so bringing him up is rather a laughable example of confirmation bias on your part. See: http://www.mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/the-five-lessons-of-climate-change.pdf

As I said. Stupid.

She didn't work there and critises about 0.6% of the report. Meanwhile, Shell and other industry participants contributed to the report and subscribe to its findings and process. See for instance: https://reports.shell.com/annual-report/2018/strategic-report/climate-change-and-energy-transition.php

Meanwhile raspberrylady is a nobody peddling lies.

Climate skeptics aren't skeptic but just stupid.

I will stop the namecalling if you stop as well. Your first post was a swipe at most posters here for having TDS. That's insulting in itself so you get back what you threw.

Also, it might be a strange turn of phrase but I do not remember anyone on this board ever suggesting voting for a politicians that they cannot vote for. And there's been a lot of talk about Brexit and Trump here. So yeah, I'm not buying it you're not American, especially since the first thing you watch in the morning is CNN.

Also, no Democrat supports your idea of American nationalism so your entire political position is circumspect.

I'm not even American, you moron, so I'm not a "mainstream media consumer". Trump is corrupt. Clear as day from anywhere outside the US.

2 years on, and Trump Derangement Syndrome is as strong as ever. Scott Adams predicted that by now it would have been abated.... that afaics is the only prediction he got wrong. — Nobeernolife

Indeed. It's surprising his supporters are still so deranged to actually defend Trump. A terrible affliction.

:ok:

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News that he was personally asked by the State Department to contact Ukrainian officials and inquire about investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden.

Now we know it was Trump.

1 + 1 =...?

I look forward to you eating those words after listening to the podcast.

Without socialist ideals there would not be universal suffrage or worker's rights. In certain areas, socialism has been much more succesful in promoting "equality" than other political theories.

Equality itself is a goal of social justice that is regularly ignored by other political theories where socialism considers there's a role for the government. Most obvious where it concerns equality of opportunity. That equality can be promoted by several means, access to healthcare, access to education, access to loans (Fannie Mae for instance) and even means (progressive taxation and subsidies). These have been the result of socialist ideals. Nowadays though, we need to prove the business case that a healthy and educated citizenry is good for the economy, which is a degradation of socialst ideals because it reduces people to a means for the economy.

We've just had a jobless recovery: yes, a lot of people are employed but labour share of GDP and resultant wealth is steadily declining so we see the next inequality that leads to social injustice - that between the owners of capital and labourers. We can only expect that this will be exacerbated with the further development of robotics replacing more complex labour (like writing contracts, eek!). See for instance: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/employment-and-growth/a-new-look-at-the-declining-labor-share-of-income-in-the-united-states

Barr : "shut up so I can concentrate on sucking your cock".

Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone.

That doesn't make sense. The Constitution can still be amended so can be subject to change even if it were incompatible with Communism (which it isn't necessarily). So, for realz, a person born in the USA is by definition an American. If this person is also a convinced communist, is he still an American according to you?

They're not my arguments but those of Hillary and other "true" Democrats. Or corporate sell-outs as I'd like to call them.

We'll see. The MSM is now channeling centrist Democrats: Bernie is too left for voters, too left for my taste, he cost Hillary the election (no you dumb fucknuts, your despotic forwarding of that cunt cost you the election) etc. etc., he's not a real Democrat because he sits as an Independent. As if Donald is a true Republican or Mike Bloomberg a real Democrat.

Greatest democracy!

What? Only since 4 minutes ago?

You don't know what I'm under the false impression about. Only I know that, but that might not make any sense, but it sounds ridiculous enough for me to say, so I'll say it.

At any rate, I'm in favor of weed legalization. That's consistent with the Libertarian sentiment within conservatism and its ideology of limited government interference in personal decisions. The appeasement of the religious wing of the Republican party is what led to the war on drugs, but that had its heyday many years ago. The point is that there are plenty of drug legalization advocates who would classify as conservative, but probably a lesser number of actual pot smokers are conservatives, mostly because, well, someone has to go to work and pay the bills. — Hanover

And yet, despite bipartisan support, it's not being tabled by Republican politicians because the political establishment is more conservative than even conservative people and has been for quite some time (this would be true if Democrats were in power as well). The point of all this back and forth is that you agree on a lot of things with Democrats and Independents alike to the point where you are part of a majority that is entirely ignored. Unless, of course, you're part of the 1% in which case your politicians are only too happy to take your money and "get some shit done" for you.

Actually Americans are more ethnically diverse than Europeans but less ideologically diverse. ... However, I would say that being communist keeps you from being American, largely because I see being an American as requiring an allegiance to a certain ideology, thus the term "unAmerican ideals" holds meaning. — Hanover

Americans are less ideologically diverse because being American means you don't hold certain ideologies. :rofl:

I believe President Trump and the Attorney General William Barr fucked children with their buddy, Jeffrey Epstein. — Noah Te Stroete

Oh certainly. If we take his ogling of underage girls in his pageants into account, as well as his general mysogyny and "grab them by the pussy" then that's pretty obvious.

please take the time as I would be interested in it. So far I have not sensed a definitive win one way or the other. I had it early on with Obama when he was still running against Hillary. Never felt it with Hillary though but then I thought she was a dirty candidate from the beginning.

It's also pretty clear that Trump voters are voting against their interests, yes. Democrats have done the same in years past-- but this is in a league of its own. — Xtrix

I don't think it matters which party is voted in, they will act against the interest of a majority of voters. So whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you are voting against your interest because the system is rigged in favour of monied interests. I refer to the paper I shared before. There's a correlation between what rich people want and don't want and the laws that get passed. There's no such correlation between what a majority wants and what laws get passed.

You said that only one vote mattered, which was a reference to the one vote the people make at the ballot box. That's how that works. — Hanover

Whoosh. That was the sarcasm flying past your head.

I didn't say any such thing, it was implied in your comment to which I reacted by first summarising your position distilling the stupidity of it in a single sentence.

I'm sure they do, but I'd expect they're more interested in what those who voted them want than their opponents. — Hanover

Uh no... That would still be stupid. If you want more votes you better deliver on what your opponent's voters want when they also want what your voters want. You seem to be under the false impression only Democrats want to legalise weed for instance. When I talk about a majority of americans wanting something I'm taking about a majority in total but also per subgroup of Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

Finally, I would like to think Americans as a people are as heterogeneous as Europeans and that political ideas from communism to despotism are represented among them. But in the US political arena only a very small fraction of that is represented (typical right of centre to right wing, with more difference on a cultural axis). It leads to a very impoverished political debate and a lot of ideological grand standing over perceived differences which are in fact minimal from any country with a pluralistic democratic system. Democrat or Republican you're screwed either way but you'll thank them for the privilege depending on what party you vote for. Bernie has a chance of changing this.

Here's the Merriam Webster's example sentence: Yes, you made a mistake, but it's okay; nobody's perfect.

That's how I hear it often. The shift to monologue might be peculair with my surroundings, I don't know. Or me projecting this on others. Don't know. In any case, the first version definitely seems to be in use also in the English speaking world.

Oxford: Well I'm sorry—but nobody's perfect (= used when someone has criticized you).

This is much closer to how you seem to hear it regularly. I suspect we'd sooner tell someone to fuck off in the Netherlands than say we're sorry, which might be why this doesn't strike me as common usage.

Do you guys vote daily in the Netherlands just to be sure you keep with the popular sentiment. — Hanover

Missing the point as usual. Must be your age. Our politicians aren't so retarded to think they can ignore polling data about important issues.

Ahh yes, the objective research shows that America does not want what Trump offers but the Trump voters are too stupid to vote for what they want. — Hanover

You seem to have forgotten he lost the popular vote.

The only polling that matters is that actual polling that occurs on election day. The other polls, and there were many, showed that Clinton was going to easily win the election. I guess you've located another poll that shows that Americans really don't want the president that they elected and that even should they continue to vote for him, they really don't want him. — Hanover

Yeah, never mind trying to figure out what people actually want and need. There's just one moment in time that matters. And together with your two similar options for parties is why the US is a failed democracy. Congrats.

Bernie is absolutely reactionary and is part of a continual move to the left. — Hanover

He's only reactionary to you because you're a die hard Conservative. To a lot of Americans he isn't. The proof we see in his performance in iowa and new Hampshire.

I find a diagram with socially Conservative vs. Socially progressive on the one hand and laissez faire capitalism vs economic socialism on the other a reasonably helpful tool to plot most political parties.

This presupposes that the majority doesn't want what Trump offers. What you mean to say is that your hope is that US politics is brought into alignment with something you find more palatable. — Hanover

No, I meant what I said not what you want it to mean. Research is quite clear on this. What the majority of voters want doesn't matter in the USA.

Greatest democracy my ass.

I'd argue on the other hand that if the Democrats wish to win, they need to move back to the center, instead of continuing to drift left because that shift is reactionary to Trump and not the result of a sudden desire by middle America to emulate European liberalism. — Hanover

Trump's election was reactionary to the fact the political establishment hasn't listened to people for quite some time and was a lurch to the insane right. Bernie Sanders isn't reactionary at all but the most sensible of the democrats as it most closely aligns what a majority of Americans want. As consistently polled when people are asked about policies without identifying whether it's a republican or democratic idea.

Don't worry about it turning into a European utopia. You're too far removed from that to reach that within 8 years. Also, we're mostly not Liberal but then that's not the only thing Americans consistently get wrong because they actually barely know anything about anything outside of the US.

He has no experience whatsoever and his plans are just status quo bullshit. Exactly what the US doesn't need. Beating Trump shouldn't be the goal, transforming US politics and aligning it more with what a majority of people want should be the goal. There's a worrying correlation between what the rich want and what laws get passed and what the rich don't want and what laws therefore don't get passed when compared to the correlation between what the rest want and what laws don't get passed and what the rest don't want and what laws still get passed.

You can read this:

One [finding] is the nearly total failure of “median voter” and other Majoritarian Electoral Democracy theories. When the preferences of economic elites and the stands of organized interest groups are controlled for, the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy. — Princeton research paper

Trump is corrupt. And you can now also add "lying" to your outstanding moral character as I've (and others) definitely and conclusively argued the case for Trump's corruption in this thread. Everybody but you is convinced. The problem here is you, not my arguments.

You cannot be convinced because you're a party hack and you're not open to arguments. Trump is corrupt and so is the Republican party and people like you defending their behaviour. But please continue talking and exemplifying the moral bankruptcy of the alt right.

I'm not playing. You know but refuse to reason or are paid to disagree.

If you debate a fool people might not know the difference. I'll debate with people who are open to reason. Other than that, since this is a public forum, I can only repeat the truth when someone persists in spreading lies.

I think Buttigieg would be a terrible choice.

I'm not arguing with him. I'm just stating the facts and employing the same tactic as him and his ilk. If you repeat something long enough others might start to believe it. The difference is what I say is actually true.

It's proven Trump is corrupt. You don't need to trust me, you just need the ability to read and reason.