Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

f565zdh7hrr11.jpg?width=945&auto=webp&s=ac8841c67bbf954764c9fa8001b03e0ca68f89e5.jpg

[Kapture1]

They were also way off in 2008 and 2012 and were way off in a number of states in 2016. A bunch of different polls (IBD, McClathcy, Marist, etc.) were close to the final margin in the popular vote.

538 says this about Rasmussen, who they give a C+ to in terms of accuracy

For instance, Rasmussen Reports deserves a lot of credit for its final, national poll of the 2016 presidential election, which had Hillary Clinton ahead by 2 percentage points, almost her exact margin of victory in the popular vote. But Rasmussen Reports polls are conducted by a Rasmussen spinoff called Pulse Opinion Research LLC, and state polls conducted by Rasmussen and Pulse Opinion Research over the past year or two have generally been mediocre.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-pollsters-to-trust-in-2018/

And it's not because 538 just hates Trump, hates conservatives, blah blah blah... they give FoxNews polls a grade of A

so the site that is run by Dem Nate Silver, that gave Hillary a 70% chance at winning gives Rasmussen gets a C+?

lol




[Initiate Crayola version of events]
talkingpoint.ABC.exe talkingpoint.NBC.exe
talkingpoint.CNN.exe talkingpoinot.MSNBC.exe
talkingpoint.CBS.exe

[Ignore programs] retractions.exe
hipocracy.definition.pub

{Rasmussen is[bad; inaccurate; conservative; makes orange man look good] system.error == Orange.man.bad

}

bool NotMyPresident() {
int kek = 1;

return (kek == DONALD_JOHN_TRUMP);
}
bool isItHerTurn() {
return !NotMyPresident();
}

const char* RandomLeftistGibberish() {
srand(time(NULL));

int index = rand() % ARRAYSIZE(TALKING_POINTS);
return TALKING_POINTS[index];

} int main() { while (!isItHerTurn())
{ printf(RandomLeftistGibberish());
}
}

b2x5cCT.png

[Dr. Strangelove]

Got any factual evidence to provide that demonstrates that the C+ grade isn't deserved? Those grades are based on their entire record of polling, not just one poll in one year.

Of course, I expect nothing from you, because you can't back up your claim that no one is more accurate than Rassmussen. You've just got a stack of photoshopped pictures of Trump made to look all muscular (weird hobby you have, incidentally, but I'm not one to judge).

[Kapture1]

if (Kapture1($username, likes DJT') !== false)
{
echo "You're a dfumpkin. ORANGE MAN BAD\n";
} elseif (Kapture1($comment, 'trump') !== false)
{
[If MEME]
echo "That's a heavily Russian bot kind of thing to do\n";
}

[hack]

It's remarkable that this forum has probably 3 or 4 people still more extreme than Lomborg. Not even he disputes the basic science anymore. I don't know what the rest of you think you are doing, but he's getting rich pulling funding from people desperate to kep their slice of the pie.

That GDP comment -- .2%-2% -- is very depressing. Forget what it says about your moral fibre for a minute, Geezer, and let's just focus on how ridiculously inconsistent you are with this: your claim that the IPCC long-term forecast isn't credible relies on believing another part of the IPCC long-term forecast. That's the mental equivalent of shitting into the same pool from which you are drinking. Lomborg is the same kind of slimy gollum you are -- perhaps you both were incubated in the same ooze -- but at least he's intellectually consistent. He's always specialized in misleading apples/oranges comparisons like these, but at least he's not asking us to believe the IPCC only to the extent required to not believe the IPCC. You've come up with some doozies around here, but this is top-3 at the very least.

[iam416]

I love the apples/oranges comment. Especially in view of the laughable comparison of any future prediction to the IPCC to bootstrap the IPCC. That, of course, is apples to apples I guess.

Can't wait for 2030. And 2040.

[THE_WIZARD_]

shaddup

[iam416]

Ok

[crashcourse]

was fun watching multiple networks call kanye every name in the book.

kind of left jim brown out of it

and tiger woods

Tyson, herschell waljker terrel owens Shaquille oneill all support trump

not sure any blacks would in 2008 or 12 but 16 up to 20% likely black vote for trump maybe more

[Dr. Strangelove]

[WingsFan]

DSL I have seen you post a lot whats going on FOX News, why watch it?

I could cares less about celebrity's political opinions, but CNN has taken their low to a new level.

Kanye West is a "Token Negro" and "a Negro that doesn't read" -- damn -- as Don Lemon and the other black lady laughs?

There is a white guy on the panel shaking his head NO - Im not saying a F'g ing word, not going to laugh along with them - going to sit here and say nothing or be in BIG trouble.

Do I even have to say it? Could you image any other "News" channels talking and laughing like this (not even MSNBC has gone this low)?

[Da Geezer]

It's remarkable that this forum has probably 3 or 4 people still more extreme than Lomborg. Not even he disputes the basic science anymore. I don't know what the rest of you think you are doing, but he's getting rich pulling funding from people desperate to kep their slice of the pie.

That GDP comment -- .2%-2% -- is very depressing. Forget what it says about your moral fibre for a minute, Geezer, and let's just focus on how ridiculously inconsistent you are with this: your claim that the IPCC long-term forecast isn't credible relies on believing another part of the IPCC long-term forecast. That's the mental equivalent of shitting into the same pool from which you are drinking. Lomborg is the same kind of slimy gollum you are -- perhaps you both were incubated in the same ooze -- but at least he's intellectually consistent. He's always specialized in misleading apples/oranges comparisons like these, but at least he's not asking us to believe the IPCC only to the extent required to not believe the IPCC. You've come up with some doozies around here, but this is top-3 at the very least.

Hack, the italicized part of my post was a quote from Lomborg. I didn't write it.

And my whole post made two points. First, modeling cannot work in this climate debate without reasonably complete data as an input. Why DID the earth warm (around 1000) to a temperature higher than is now predicted in 2100? And what of disruptive technologies in the next 30 years? If cold fusion were perfected in 2025, does your model anticipate that? Or did it anticipate the enormous increase in natural gas (and oil) that has happened in the last 15 years or so owing to shale technology? Of course not. Yet the use of natural gas to generate electricity has had the most positive impact on lowering CO2 emissions of any event in the last 20 years (yes, even more than the Paris Climate Accord !!). As Lomborg says, the best investments we can make as a planet is in green technology when it can compete with shale natural gas without the current 75-80% taxpayer subsidy. And stop destroying the hydroelectric dams in the name of climate change!

Second, the IPCC recommendations would be too costly. Lomborg does a good job with that. It appears that only that babe from NY, Octavio-Cortez, and yourself are under the same illusion that we earthlings can just print money to pay for all this wasteful spending on "green technology". A 2% yearly decrease in global GDP for an extended period of time would hurt the poor of the world a lot more than the rich. But you don't care about them when what you call "the project" is questioned. Hack, you are a one-world radical progressive. You, by your own admission, can't navigate the free market in order to get a job, but you certainly can suck up to powerful people who want "social justice" or socialism, whichever term you prefer. Hack, you are not a Man of Gold. At best you are a Man of Tin. The Tinman is a good avatar for you: a vacant suck-up with no heart.

Oh, and in this country, it is spelled "fiber" not "fibre". Your way is the way the rest of the world spells it and how your spellchecker is set. Fitting.

[CGVT]

"Write 'Murican, dammit."
-Geezer-

[Kapture1]

i wish i had as much energy as the President.

another win for Trump over Turkey, i remember those here saying Trump's stance against Turkey was foolish, posting videos of Turks smashing their Apple iPhones lmao

I'm not tired of winning, Watch what he does with the Saudi's over the death of that journalist..

[Jeff Buchanan]

Geezer ...... I've not read the report you quote in it's entirety, seen parts of it on the web ,and I'm only familiar with Lomborg to the extent I read excerpts from his books that explain his various positions on the environment. My sense is that you are taking some liberties with his work but, whatever ........

My point in this forum has been the science regarding climate change is indisputable, there is some controversy regarding the causes but carbon emissions are right up there as a contributor. The real issue is what to do about it and the urgency required to do it. I don't think that is as settled as you and Hack want to make it out to be as represented by the attack positions at the extremes you both take here. At least that's how I see the opposing posts which are both pretty well articulated. I'll give each of you your due.

I'll state my position again: Climate change is real, the science support it. Whether or not you believe that it is cyclical or not may be immaterial. That is because man made carbon emissions are accelerating temperature. I don't think there is any question that it is affecting the planet's weather. The science on this is also pretty clear.

I've not specifically stated this here but I think the Paris agreement on climate change is an expensive way of helping very little. But, it's a start, importantly on the global level, in addressing the issue. I support the President's withdrawal mostly because some of it's conclusions and plans of action need to be rethought given the costs v. the uncertain benefits. I don't think he has done a good job in explaining why he withdrew and where he wants to go in the future, choosing instead to use reasons that appeal to his base (e.g., climate change is a hoax which is patently untrue) and offering no plan going forward. That sort of thing undermines his credibility and that of the US in addressing a fact of life on earth that absolutely needs reasoned attention, not hysteria..... and that's where we are.

One more down side of the current circumstance involving the need to address global warming in a global forum. It is very clear that in the US, states and localities are taking uncoordinated and unilateral steps to address what they see are local environmental problems. I think that is a problem despite what some observers say is a good thing that off-sets what the president is doing in his withdrawal from the Paris agreement. There are good argument's however, on both sides, for or against a level of federal involvement in coordinating approaches to decrease carbon emissions. I can make as good of an argument for a carbon tax as a means of reducing carbon emissions as the Green's can make for increasing use of green energy (wind, solar, hydro, etc). Maybe there's middle ground for the application of both in a coordinated, national way ? Do ya think?