VP Debate

[General Peters]

Because it’s Hispanic Heritage Month and you’re being very very insensitive (and thus racist, misogynistic, homophobic and a white supremacist Nazi Socialist of the Third Reich)!!

This admin did nothing for the Hurricane Helene victims. Nothing. They had FEMA doing nothing but taking care of illegals. Fukk you for even considering voting for these America Last Pieces of SHYTE.

[L45B]

This admin did nothing for the Hurricane Helene victims. Nothing. They had FEMA doing nothing but taking care of illegals. Fukk you for even considering voting for these America Last Pieces of SHYTE.

Just like Screwy and Diego and m2, I will be proudly casting my vote for Kamala and Tim, because I am for price controls, because price controls destroy markets and bring back equilibrium to all races and gender types. We need a fresh start. And Kamala is a change candidate, starting when her VP term ends! A few bread lines will get people appreciating what they had when Joe was signing bills during his afternoon nap.

This will admittedly be a bit strange voting for Kamala for the first time ever. Had she stayed in the D race in 2020, and had Joe come down with a cold or jet lag, I may have voted for her in the primary. Definitely her before that racist Nazi Socialist Tulsi. Of course in 2024, I proudly submitted my primary vote, in the 14th district of NY, for Joe with a post-it note write-in for Kamala, in the event that Joe was not able to make it for another term. Obviously he is cognitively able to run and serve again, but my party masters have decided that his sleepy routine will not cut it and I am in complete lockstep with those in charge of my D party. D for democracy!! I don’t even have to vote for it because I agree with it!! See how that works??!!

[88BuckeyeGrad]

I'm voting for Trump. The Biden-Harris administration has done nothing to end climate change. Have you noticed all the hurricanes devastating the country? Sure, they talk a great climate change game. But when it comes down to actually controlling the weather so it is nice all the time, they are as bad as George Bush was.

[Roux]

Good point, 88, especially considering that they control the weather.

[88BuckeyeGrad]

Good point, 88, especially considering that they control the weather.

Isn't that the entire goal of climate change activism? Fewer, weaker hurricanes. No more droughts, floods, etc. They have had 50 years to put up or shut up. Bupkiss.

[HighPlainsGrifter]

The Left is so weird. Their entire goal is weather control. They've been influencing storms for 80 years with increasing levels of success. This is proven science.

[StrawMan]

Dem success... or succession

[Sven Golly]

Dem success... or succession

[Softball Bat]

LOL

RACK StrawMan!

[BSmack]

Some of you folks need a civics class update on what the VP does in the Administration. As John Nance Garner one said, the job wasn’t worth “…a bucket of warm piss.”

[mvscal]

Some of you folks need a civics class update on what the VP does in the Administration. As John Nance Garner one said, the job wasn’t worth “…a bucket of warm piss.”

That's not what Pedo Joe said about her role, so shovel the shit somewhere else.

[BSmack]

Some of you folks need a civics class update on what the VP does in the Administration. As John Nance Garner one said, the job wasn’t worth “…a bucket of warm piss.”

That's not what Pedo Joe said about her role, so shovel the shit somewhere else.

Campaign rhetoric. I’m talking about how the system really works.

[Mikey]

Good point, 88, especially considering that they control the weather.

Isn't that the entire goal of climate change activism? Fewer, weaker hurricanes. No more droughts, floods, etc. They have had 50 years to put up or shut up. Bupkiss.

I find it kind of funny, and sad at the same time, how so many of the knuckledragging climate change deniers who have for decades opposed any type fossil fuel reductions or any other government action on climate, including government funding for disaster relief, would now be blaming the “other side” for the recent climate disasters.

These hurricanes are devastating a lot of Republican areas. Biden and Harris must have planned it that way.

Or maybe it’s God’s punishment.

[mvscal]

Some of you folks need a civics class update on what the VP does in the Administration. As John Nance Garner one said, the job wasn’t worth “…a bucket of warm piss.”

That's not what Pedo Joe said about her role, so shovel the shit somewhere else.

Campaign rhetoric. I’m talking about how the system really works.

By "campaign rhetoric", I assume you mean bullshit lies. Would that be fair?

In any event, how the system really works is that the VP takes on whatever tasks assigned by the President. How significant the role is depends on the President. Pedo Joe is pretty dependent on Depends.

[88BuckeyeGrad]

I find it kind of funny, and sad at the same time, how so many of the knuckledragging climate change deniers who have for decades opposed any type fossil fuel reductions or any other government action on climate, including government funding for disaster relief, would now be blaming the “other side” for the recent climate disasters.

I hear you, Mikey. Let’s say that Harris gets elected and Team D takes control over both the House and Senate and enacts a carbon neutral policy, which is met. What will the climate be then? Do hurricanes become less common and less intense? Are wildfires, droughts and floods a thing of the past? What does the country’s climate look like if we do what the opposite of knuckle dragging climate change deniers want? Seriously. What is the end of the rainbow look like in your vision? How long does it take, and how can we measure the success of the policy?

[Mikey]

It’s something that should have been done decades ago but prevented primarily by the Republican Party’s subservience to the fossil fuel industry. I’m sure that you are aware anything done in the next few years would not have a noticeable effect on weather for possibly decades, but it would at least begin to slow down the the warming and its effects on weather events.

And don’t be deliberately obtuse. There’s no “rainbow.” None of these things become a “thing of the past” but the increasing intensities would slow down. What’s happening now is exactly what has been predicted by climate scientists for years, but pretty much ignored and / or (mostly) denied by your side. Now, many are acknowledging it but saying it’s too late, we just need to learn to adapt and gas prices are just too high. But you can only adapt so far. Just because you and I might not see a big difference doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

[Sudden Sam]

Nothing we do will make a shits worth of difference because China and India are the biggest polluters and they aren’t going to do a goddam thing to curb it.

[The Seer]

Nothing we do will make a shits worth of difference because China and India are the biggest polluters and they aren’t going to do a goddam thing to curb it.

But we'd miss out on all that virtue signaling....

[Mikey]

Nothing we do will make a shits worth of difference because China and India are the biggest polluters and they aren’t going to do a goddam thing to curb it.

So we wait for them to do something first. That’s a great philosophy. Have you ever done anything on your own without someone else to lead the way?

I think I’ll go out and do some shoplifting this afternoon. After all, so many other assholes are doing it, what’s the difference if I pick up some free stuff too.

[HighPlainsGrifter]

Nothing we do will make a shits worth of difference because China and India are the biggest polluters and they aren’t going to do a goddam thing to curb it.

So we wait for them to do something first.

Do you think we're doing nothing?

[Mikey]

Nothing we do will make a shits worth of difference because China and India are the biggest polluters and they aren’t going to do a goddam thing to curb it.

But we'd miss out on all that virtue signaling....

You mean as opposed to being an asshole signaling?

[Mikey]

Nothing we do will make a shits worth of difference because China and India are the biggest polluters and they aren’t going to do a goddam thing to curb it.

So we wait for them to do something first.

Do you think we're doing nothing?

That would be the preferred course for your Dear Leader and the vast majority of the Republican Party.

[HighPlainsGrifter]

You can stop deflecting whenever you're ready. I'll wait.

[Mikey]

You can stop deflecting whenever you're ready. I'll wait.

It was a stupid question, for two reasons.

To answer it directly, of course we’re not doing “nothing.” Would you care to define what you would consider “nothing?” We’re not doing enough and, like I said, your Dear Leader and his Republican sycophants would rather we do a lot less.

Second reason. My statement said “so we wait for them to do something first,” in no way implying that we are doing “nothing.”

So again, what would your definition of “nothing” be, and do you think we are doing “enough” or maybe “too much?”

In the future, try addressing what I actually post instead assuming something that isn’t there to come up with some obtuse “gotcha” question.

[Sudden Sam]

I repeat…anything we do, or are doing, won’t make even a slight dent in anything.

The Chinese intend to be living here soon enough. And they don’t GARA about pollution. So let’s leave this place as fucked up as possible for them.

[Mikey]

I repeat…anything we do, or are doing, won’t make even a slight dent in anything.

The Chinese intend to be living here soon enough. And they don’t GARA about pollution. So let’s leave this place as fucked up as possible for them.

You’re certainly being cynical today. Could this have anything to do with the Vanderbilt game?

If the Doyers win tonight I may be joining you.

[Sudden Sam]

You’re certainly being cynical today. Could this have anything to do with the Vanderbilt game?

If the Doyers win tonight I may be joining you.

Yeah, I’m a little cranky lately! So what?!

AAAAAAGGHH!!!!!!!

[Diego in Seattle]

The Chinese intend to be living here soon enough. And they don’t GARA about pollution. So let’s leave this place as fucked up as possible for them.

Smackaholic is way ahead of you....

[88BuckeyeGrad]

It’s something that should have been done decades ago but prevented primarily by the Republican Party’s subservience to the fossil fuel industry. I’m sure that you are aware anything done in the next few years would not have a noticeable effect on weather for possibly decades, but it would at least begin to slow down the the warming and its effects on weather events.

And don’t be deliberately obtuse. There’s no “rainbow.” None of these things become a “thing of the past” but the increasing intensities would slow down. What’s happening now is exactly what has been predicted by climate scientists for years, but pretty much ignored and / or (mostly) denied by your side. Now, many are acknowledging it but saying it’s too late, we just need to learn to adapt and gas prices are just too high. But you can only adapt so far. Just because you and I might not see a big difference doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

I disagree with your factual assertions. Have you read Unsettled?

You wouldn’t state things as fact if you knew the facts.

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climat ... C89&sr=8-1

To actually do what the climate cultists want to do, you have to insist that most of the impoverished on the planet remain that way for many generations. And you have to waste the wealth of the rest of the world protecting against the almost imperceptible chance that there might be a human contribution to natural global temperature variation, which may or may not be beneficial to humans. And this, of course, requires a surrender to global governance. The last point being the single largest driving factor, in my opinion. If it were not the case, why would the global elite continue erecting homes on the coasts and jetting to them in private planes? Climate change hysteria is predominantly a political tool. The scientific underpinnings are sketchy, at best. Read Koonin’s book.

[Mikey]

You can stop deflecting whenever you're ready. I'll wait.

So again, what would your definition of “nothing” be, and do you think we are doing “enough” or maybe “too much?”

And the answer from HPG...

[Mikey]

It’s something that should have been done decades ago but prevented primarily by the Republican Party’s subservience to the fossil fuel industry. I’m sure that you are aware anything done in the next few years would not have a noticeable effect on weather for possibly decades, but it would at least begin to slow down the the warming and its effects on weather events.

And don’t be deliberately obtuse. There’s no “rainbow.” None of these things become a “thing of the past” but the increasing intensities would slow down. What’s happening now is exactly what has been predicted by climate scientists for years, but pretty much ignored and / or (mostly) denied by your side. Now, many are acknowledging it but saying it’s too late, we just need to learn to adapt and gas prices are just too high. But you can only adapt so far. Just because you and I might not see a big difference doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.

I disagree with your factual assertions. Have you read Unsettled?

You wouldn’t state things as fact if you knew the facts.

https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climat ... C89&sr=8-1

To actually do what the climate cultists want to do, you have to insist that most of the impoverished on the planet remain that way for many generations. And you have to waste the wealth of the rest of the world protecting against the almost imperceptible chance that there might be a human contribution to natural global temperature variation, which may or may not be beneficial to humans. And this, of course, requires a surrender to global governance. The last point being the single largest driving factor, in my opinion. If it were not the case, why would the global elite continue erecting homes on the coasts and jetting to them in private planes? Climate change hysteria is predominantly a political tool. The scientific underpinnings are sketchy, at best. Read Koonin’s book.

You found a book by an author with a lot of impressive sounding credentials, but no actual background or research in climate science. A writer who is acting basically as a shill for the fossil fuel industry, and whose MO is to take other peoples' work (actual climate scientists) and try to find ways to poke holes in it. But this book does seem to confirm your pre-conceived POV on the subject, so you proclaim it as "factual." I think that they have a fancy term for that...confirmation bias? I may have to give it a read anyway, out of curiosity. Here's an interesting review of your book by someone who knows the author...though he's probably what you would consider a "climate cultist" (i.e. anybody who disagrees with your factualness).

A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’
‘Tilting at strawmen.’ Or ‘red flag.’ There are no finer shorthand descriptions of a controversial new book on climate science.

I would normally ignore a book by a non-climate scientist promising “the truth about climate science that you aren’t getting elsewhere.” Such language is a red flag. But I’ve known the author of “Unsettled” since I took his quantum mechanics course as a Ph.D. student at Caltech in the 1970s. He’s smart and I like him, so I’m inclined to give his book a chance.

But smart scientists aren’t always right, and nice guys are still prone to biases – especially if they listen to the wrong people. In an apparent quest for fairness when he led a committee of the American Physical Society (one of my professional organizations) to assess its statement on climate change, he recruited three scientists to represent the 97% consensus, and three contrarians, presumably to speak for the other 3%. The lack of proportionate representation amplified the contrary opinions that he heard, and only in one direction. He completely ignored another, equally unfounded, contrary view. The position sometimes referred to as “doomism” (the belief that the worst-case is inevitable and it is too late to prevent it) was not represented.

The three contrarians had a long and well-documented history of engaging in ad hominem attacks on mainstream climate scientists and misrepresenting their work. Most of the technical mistakes and misrepresentations in “Unsettled” may simply be attributable to Koonin’s trust of those advisors and lack of rigorous independent verification.

Some books CAN be told by their cover. This is one of them.

Unfortunately, “Unsettled” is a book you can accurately judge by its cover. Koonin’s title hints at a logical fallacy called the “strawman” argument. The blurb on the flap confirms this with its opening sentence: “When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that ‘the science is settled.’”

A bit of fact checking by the author or publisher would have shown that this claim is not true. In fact, Koonin makes use of an old strawman concocted by opponents of climate science in the 1990s to create an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying politicians – making them easier to attack.

The phrase “science is settled” is repeated as Koonin’s target throughout the book, even though it has never been in common use by climate scientists and their supporters. If it were, then Google and LexisNexis searches would surely turn up instances, but the opposite is true. All the examples I found were from critics claiming that advocates of the consensus had said it.

Bogus ‘science is settled‘ rhetoric dating back 25 years
The earliest published use I found was a July 11, 1996, letter to the Wall Street Journal from prominent denier Fred Singer, falsely claiming that the IPCC report had been inappropriately tampered with for political purposes and that “politicians and activists” were “anxious to stipulate that the science is settled.”

Singer’s strawman gained traction a year later when William O’Keefe, the chairman of Global Climate Coalition (a lobbying organization opposed to climate action) claimed in a statement to Congress that “the [Clinton] Administration repeatedly quotes that [IPCC] sentiment out of context in its statements that the ‘science is settled.’” It stands to reason that repeated use of the phrase “science is settled” would be found in searches if true.

Searches do, however, turn up (in the White House archive) what Clinton actually said only two weeks before Singer’s letter. “The science is clear and compelling: We humans are changing the global climate.” Nobody could argue with that at the time, nor can they now.

There are many examples of physical problems that are difficult to model, have large uncertainties and unpredictable outcomes, put people at risk, and require policy decisions and international treaties. My primary field of planetary defense is one. It’s a clear and compelling fact that the Earth will be hit by another asteroid. We just don’t know where, when, or how bad it will be.

The recent re-entry of an errant Chinese upper stage provides a more concrete analogy. The fact that its orbit would decay and it was going to come down was not in question, and could rightly be called “a settled fact.” Various models had huge uncertainties, disagreed with one another, and could not predict the reentry location. But those inadequacies cannot be used as evidence for any absurd claim that it was going to stay in orbit. Anyone taking that position would be guilty of the same logical fallacy (called “impossible expectations”) that Koonin directs toward climate science.

Unpacking the ‘strawman’ argument
Another example of a strawman argument in “Unsettled” is the claim that the term “climate change denial” is intended to invoke Holocaust denial, an assertion that triggers strong emotions. Koonin says, “I find it particularly abhorrent to have a call for open scientific discussion equated with Holocaust denial, especially since the Nazis killed more than two hundred of my relatives in Eastern Europe.” I do not doubt the sincerity of his anger, but it is misdirected.

First, it’s aimed at a strawman. Climate change deniers are (by definition) not asking for open scientific discussion. The term “denier” is reserved for those who simply deny.

Second, there is no evidence that the term “climate change denial” is intended to invoke Holocaust denial. Ironically, this connection was first made by the late Hollywood screenwriter Michael Crichton, speaking at a 2003 lecture at Caltech, where Koonin was provost. The word “denier” literally means “one that denies” and the term has been used this way since the 1400s. The term Holocaust denier didn’t come into widespread use until the 1980s. By the early 1990s “denier” was independently being used to describe those who deny the science of climate change.

Third, it is climate scientists, not deniers, who have been compared to Nazis and perpetrators of genocide. In fact it was Crichton himself, in the appendix to his 2004 book “State of Fear,” who directly equated climate scientists to eugenicists who had a role in “killing of ten million undesirables.” Crichton also explicitly compared climate scientists to Trofim Lysenko, whose work he described as resulting in “famines that killed millions and purges that sent hundreds of dissenting Soviet scientists to the gulags or the firing squads.” Nevertheless, Koonin praises Crichton and cites “State of Fear” as evidence that he was an “outspoken advocate for scientific integrity” who “looked askance at the public presentation of climate science.”

Whether one thinks it is more abhorrent to be described by the same word as those who deny other things, including the Holocaust, or to be explicitly equated to those who carried out the Holocaust is a matter of personal opinion but may indicate unconscious bias.

More uncertainty amounts to more risk
Koonin’s bias became evident in the introduction by his use of biased language. Climate scientists “adjust model results to obfuscate shortcomings.” “Climate alarmism has come to dominate US politics.” By speaking openly about uncertainty, he had “inadvertently broken some code of silence, like the Mafia’s omerta.”

Koonin implies throughout the book that climate scientists have conspired to downplay uncertainty and exaggerate the risk, apparently unaware of the fact that increased uncertainty means increased risks. Nowhere does he mention that climate sensitivity is described in the scientific literature by a probability density function that is highly skewed, with a long high-sensitivity tail that we cannot discount with certainty. Risk is the integrated product of probability and consequences. It’s hard to argue that the consequences of climate change don’t get worse with sensitivity.

If a pilot isn’t sure about having enough fuel to get you to your destination, if an astronomer isn’t sure that an incoming asteroid will miss the Earth, if your doctor isn’t sure if you have a terminal disease, if you’re not sure you turned the stove off: In each of these cases, the uncertainty is unsettling. Why does Koonin think that unsettled questions in climate science are any kind of comfort when the consequences of doing nothing can be catastrophic? “Unsettled” should leave serious scientists feeling unsettled.

Readers would do well to see crankyuncle.com for information about logical fallacies used by climate change deniers.

Mark Boslough is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. He has served on the Executive Committee of the American Physical Society Topical Group on the Physics of Climate and created, convened, and for several years chaired American Geophysical Union sessions on “Uncertainty Quantification and its Application to Climate Change.”

https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021 ... unsettled/

You can find some other critical opinions of Koonin's work in the Wikipedia article:

In 2021, Koonin published the book Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters.[24] Critics accused him of cherry picking data, muddying the waters surrounding the science of climate change, and having no experience in climate science.[25]

In a review in Scientific American, economist Gary Yohe wrote that Koonin "falsely suggests that we don't understand the risks well enough to take action":

The science is stronger than ever around findings that speak to the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, and has been growing stronger for decades. In the early days of research, the uncertainty was wide; but with each subsequent step that uncertainty has narrowed or become better understood. This is how science works, and in the case of climate, the early indications detected and attributed in the 1980s and 1990s, have come true, over and over again and sooner than anticipated... [Decision makers] are using the best and most honest science to inform prospective investments in abatement (reducing greenhouse gas emissions to diminish the estimated likelihoods of dangerous climate change impacts) and adaptation (reducing vulnerabilities to diminish their current and projected consequences).[24]

Physicist Mark Boslough, a former student of Koonin, posted a critical review at Yale Climate Connections. He stated that "Koonin makes use of an old strawman concocted by opponents of climate science in the 1990s to create an illusion of arrogant scientists, biased media, and lying politicians – making them easier to attack."[26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Koonin

[88BuckeyeGrad]

Those articles are written by your cult’s priests. Koonin was selected by President Obama to review the climate science and provide an independent assessment of it. When Koonin started the project, he presumed that the news coverage of the climate crisis was accurate, and that his assessment would provide Obama with the best information regarding how to combat the “crisis”. But as he reviewed the science and spoke with the scientists, he came to understand that most of it is junk. Almost none of it is actually science. And that we know far less than we claim to know, and certainly not enough to support drastic policy changes.

Did you notice that your critics did not identify anything in his book that is wrong or false? Only that his book title and conclusion runs counter to their religion.

But if you want to allow others to think for you, have another wafer.

[HighPlainsGrifter]

Those articles are written by your cult’s priests. Koonin was selected by President Obama to review the climate science and provide an independent assessment of it. When Koonin started the project, he presumed that the news coverage of the climate crisis was accurate, and that his assessment would provide Obama with the best information regarding how to combat the “crisis”. But as he reviewed the science and spoke with the scientists, he came to understand that most of it is junk. Almost none of it is actually science. And that we know far less than we claim to know, and certainly not enough to support drastic policy changes.

Did you notice that your critics did not identify anything in his book that is wrong or false? Only that his book title and conclusion runs counter to their religion.

But if you want to allow others to think for you, have another wafer.

Rack this take. Our resident "follow the science" cultists do nothing but let others think for them. It's disgusting.

[88BuckeyeGrad]

And here is a response to your critic:

https://www.npr.org/2007/03/21/9047642/ ... o-congress

[Mikey]

Those articles are written by your cult’s priests. Koonin was selected by President Obama to review the climate science and provide an independent assessment of it. When Koonin started the project, he presumed that the news coverage of the climate crisis was accurate, and that his assessment would provide Obama with the best information regarding how to combat the “crisis”. But as he reviewed the science and spoke with the scientists, he came to understand that most of it is junk. Almost none of it is actually science. And that we know far less than we claim to know, and certainly not enough to support drastic policy changes.

Did you notice that your critics did not identify anything in his book that is wrong or false? Only that his book title and conclusion runs counter to their religion.

But if you want to allow others to think for you, have another wafer.

Rack this take. Our resident "follow the science" cultists do nothing but let others think for them. It's disgusting.

And which “thinking” are you following? If not science that’s widely accepted and acknowledged by scientists, then what? Your instinct? Or maybe you’ve done your own scientific research? Whatever 88Braincells tells you? Disgusting. And when are you going to answer my question, or are you going to keep dodging / deflecting?

[Mikey]

What I really meant to say is…
…double standard much?

[Mikey]

And here is a response to your critic:

https://www.npr.org/2007/03/21/9047642/ ... o-congress

How, exactly, is that a response to the critic?

[88BuckeyeGrad]

And here is a response to your critic:

https://www.npr.org/2007/03/21/9047642/ ... o-congress

How, exactly, is that a response to the critic?

Here is what your guy said:

The phrase “science is settled” is repeated as Koonin’s target throughout the book, even though it has never been in common use by climate scientists and their supporters.

From NPR:

The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.

[Screw_Michigan]

The science is settled, Gore told the lawmakers. Carbon-dioxide emissions — from cars, power plants, buildings and other sources — are heating the Earth's atmosphere.

E-fukking-nuff already. Who are we going to believe about climate change? Mikey, an actual scientist? Or you, a pedantic lawyer?

[88BuckeyeGrad]

Mikey is an actual scientist?