Politics

[Nunsuch]

For the record, I do not "hate" Mike Lindell. I just think he has no expertise or credibility when it comes to politics and governance. There is a difference. And I do believe my PhD, and my decades of research and teaching, actually have substantive value. Fortunately, many people agree with me on both counts. Now, back to my writing.

[little2add]

9 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

my PhD, and my decades of research and teaching, actually have substantive value.

 

[fides' Jack]

I do not completely agree with this (because I do believe the election was stolen):

https://www.nationalreview.com/2023/09/there-is-no-insurrection-case-against-trump/

But he makes some good points regarding the ongoing trials against Trump.  And he shows, fairly irrefutably, that this case is not about insurrection, contrary to the propaganda the media has been putting out now for over 2 years.

[fides' Jack]

So much for "peer-reviewed studies"...  It turns out I was right:

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

This is an actual confession from someone who did get published in a scientific journal (Nature), and how he selected his focus AND his conclusions because he understood the underlying bias of the editors and reviewers.  

Still, confessions don't really count as proof, right?

Here are a couple excerpts:

Quote

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

Quote

So in my recent Nature paper, which I authored with seven others, I focused narrowly on the influence of climate change on extreme wildfire behavior. Make no mistake: that influence is very real. But there are also other factors that can be just as or more important, such as poor forest management and the increasing number of people who start wildfires either accidentally or purposely. (A startling fact: over 80 percent of wildfires in the US are ignited by humans.)

Quote

A much more useful analysis would focus on changes in climate from the recent past that living people have actually experienced and then forecasting the foreseeable future—the next several decades—while accounting for changes in technology and resilience. 

In the case of my recent Nature paper, this would mean considering the impact of climate change in conjunction with anticipated reforms to forest management practices over the next several decades. In fact, our current research indicates that these changes in forest management practices could completely negate the detrimental impacts of climate change on wildfires. 

This more practical kind of analysis is discouraged, however, because looking at changes in impacts over shorter time periods and including other relevant factors reduces the calculated magnitude of the impact of climate change, and thus it weakens the case for greenhouse gas emissions reductions. 

Edited September 6, 2023 by fides' Jack
clarification and grammar

[Nunsuch]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

So much for "peer-reviewed studies"...  It turns out I was right:

https://www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published

This is an actual confession from someone who did get published in a scientific journal (Nature), and how he selected his focus AND his conclusions because he understood the underlying bias of the editors and reviewers.  

Still, confessions don't really count as proof, right?

Here are a couple excerpts:

This is an anecdote, not evidence. But you have obviously made up your mind, as with so many things....

[fides' Jack]

On 9/3/2023 at 2:02 PM, fides' Jack said:

What possible proof of widespread election fraud would naysayers believe?  There is none.  No proof could possibly exist that would make them believe.  They are beyond the force of eyewitnesses, email trails, money trails, and even full confessions.  So long as CNN says it wasn't so, they will likewise follow. 

Clearly this is the case with more than just election fraud.

[little2add]

On 9/5/2023 at 8:38 PM, Nunsuch said:

Now, back to my writing.

do you agree with Tommy Tuberville's position?  

The Biden admin is using federal funds to provide abortions in violation of the Hyde amendment. They started this fight. Tuberville is shining a light on the issue and they blame him for the mess they created.

Senator Tuberville is to be lauded for exposing the hypocrisy of the military & the Democrats in ignoring the law. 

The Hyde amendment has been law for over 40 years and was fully supported by Biden, (until the last election cycle) who often sighted his Catholic faith as the reason he faithfully supported the law, but he (Biden) no longer allows his conscious to be his guide. ☹️

During the CNN interview, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro — a Cuban-born Navy veteran — went so far as to accuse Tuberville of “aiding and abetting communists.”

[little2add]

Senior U. S. Senator Tommy Tuberville R-Alabama and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee

Edited September 8, 2023 by little2add

[Nunsuch]

On 9/7/2023 at 6:07 PM, little2add said:

do you agree with Tommy Tuberville's position?  

 

No. Nor do the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

[fides' Jack]

On "experts":

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

No. Nor do the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

what is your opinion on the The Hyde amendment ?

 

 

 

[little2add]

 

 

The Hyde Amendment is constitutional, and it saves lives. Hyde stands for the proposition that the wealthiest and strongest country in the world can and should provide life-affirming healthcare coverage to those who need it. Without the Hyde Amendment, Americans will be compelled to pay for tens of thousands of abortions a year with their federal tax dollars. And Congress will be complicit in the deaths of unborn children whose mothers deserve support, not a payment to end their pregnancies.

[Nunsuch]

23 hours ago, little2add said:

 

 

The Hyde Amendment is constitutional, and it saves lives. Hyde stands for the proposition that the wealthiest and strongest country in the world can and should provide life-affirming healthcare coverage to those who need it. Without the Hyde Amendment, Americans will be compelled to pay for tens of thousands of abortions a year with their federal tax dollars. And Congress will be complicit in the deaths of unborn children whose mothers deserve support, not a payment to end their pregnancies.

I don't view evangelical propagandists as the best source of information on constitutionality. What I think of they Hyde Amendment is irrelevant. Obviously, what I think of anything is of no real interest to you, so why should I waste my time? Continue finding voices that reinforce what you already "feel."

[little2add]

9 hours ago, Nunsuch said:

constitutionality.

what are your political objections to Senator Tuberville?  

[Nunsuch]

10 hours ago, little2add said:

what are your political objections to Senator Tuberville?  

I'm not here to be grilled by you. But I will say he is generally regarded as one of the most ignorant members of the Senate. He supports white nationalists serving in the military (where he never served), but has been widely condemned by the JCS. He is a conspiracist. And this is something I know a fair amount about, having published a peer-reviewed book on Congress and having served as a Congressional Fellow. I realize that actual credentials mean nothing to you, but I still take them seriously.