What does AI think about the Democrat party?

[Mushroom]

you oughta care which side has started. If you won't admit that then you won't come up with any solutions to the problem. You'll just be spinning wheels. People have got to admit the truth . YES> Both sides are jerks...but it is the left that started this whole thing. The socialists infiltrated THE LEFT...and continue to this day. Recognize it admit it and FIX IT.

And you think spreading lies yourself will "fix it"?

Here, want some stunning truth?

I used to consider myself a "Strong Conservative". In the last decade or so I have since moved to the "Moderate" category. And it is because of crap like this. I am still a "Conservative" in almost all things, but I can no longer call myself that, because of the actions of many which I see as morally bankrupt, who will lie and do anything they feel they have a right to do in order to try and prove they are "superior" to "the Left".

And your actions are a perfect example of why I made that decision. You have absolutely no shame, and scream yet again that apparently facts do not matter. That your beliefs have to be accepted, and any question of them is wrong. And yes, I accept that the Left has been doing that for decades. But the way to fight that is to actually hold the moral high ground yourself, not stoop to their level.

You fix it with truth and facts, not made-up bullcrap. Because I see you as no different then they are.

 

[Wuwei]

Well, "fake news" is real, and it comes from both sides politically.

But it is not hard to spot it most times, especially when it is as bad as this is. I just did some simple things I always do when by "BS alert" goes off.

First, I check the site itself. Most somewhere have an "about" page, to explain how the site came about, and what their goal is. THis is how that started on that site:



OK, so right away it makes me think it is just a one man operation, and I suspect this all might be the work of "Malcolm".

Then I read the story again. Noticing the things that should be there, but are not. No school name being mentioned is the largest one. Now how many articles like this are ever published, without the name of the school being mentioned? I honestly can't think of a single one, schools love publicity. That there is a huge strike against the reliability of the article.

And finally, I decided to check the reputation of the author. And holy crap! Apparently the author does not even really exist, other than as a name on some really out there books, and articles like this one. I saw specialties that changed radically, depending on what was being written about that time. This "Doctor" is a computer specialist, an engineer, he does cryptography, medical research, international finance, and a dozen other things. All being critical in some way in what he had just published.

And once again, something almost unheard of/ A person with a "Doctorate", that never discusses where they got it. And not one school claims to have given it to him. And yes, I did a fair amount of research into this, because I got curious. And finding nothing, I did more looking. And it all points in circles.

But I added "americaoutloud" to my mental list of garbage fake websites, along with the duffleblog and babylonbee. And to be honest, I tend to be rather shocked that in 2021 people are still so easily fooled by such. The red flags are all over this article, if one just reads it with a little common sense and healthy disbelief.

And I do not mean that like "I believe nothing", but I want any article to show enough facts to convince me it is accurate. There was a argument between tow Senators in the halls of Congress? Well, better give me both sides of the argument, not just one. Give me witnesses, and do not appear to be heavily biased. What most call "fake news" is really just biased news. But this is without a doubt 100% fake. In fact, I am pretty sure I saw this exact same claim before a few years ago, so it is not even new.

I wonder if I made a post of this, how many would believe it.

US offers to trade back Bowe Bergdahl

Seems like a fair deal.

www.duffelblog.com

That's certainly the right approach. My expertise is in science, especially physics. I have often done similar things as you when I found many were using fake science to try to prove that global warming is a hoax. Or that creation "science" shows the universe is only a few thousand years old. Or that vaccination for Covid is a failure.

None of that should be surprising because people can believe the weirdest things. All it takes is constant gaslighting.
According to a Scientific American article
Maybe 1.28 or 2% percent believe the earth is flat.
27 percent of Americans don’t accept heliocentrism,
48 percent don’t accept common ancestry of humans and non-human animals
61 percent don’t accept the big bang

Yes, Flat-Earthers Really Do Exist

Despite some methodological flaws, a recent poll credibly indicates that flat-Earthery persists

blogs.scientificamerican.com

.

 

[james bond]

That's certainly the right approach. My expertise is in science, especially physics. I have often done similar things as you when I found many were using fake science to try to prove that global warming is a hoax. Or that creation "science" shows the universe is only a few thousand years old. Or that vaccination for Covid is a failure.

None of that should be surprising because people can believe the weirdest things. All it takes is constant gaslighting.
According to a Scientific American article
Maybe 1.28 or 2% percent believe the earth is flat.
27 percent of Americans don’t accept heliocentrism,
48 percent don’t accept common ancestry of humans and non-human animals
61 percent don’t accept the big bang

Yes, Flat-Earthers Really Do Exist

Despite some methodological flaws, a recent poll credibly indicates that flat-Earthery persists

blogs.scientificamerican.com

.

They're called Democrats or libs who went to public schools.

 

[Mushroom]

I have often done similar things as you when I found many were using fake science to try to prove that global warming is a hoax.

You see, here is the difference.

I have no political axe to grind at all. I am rather shockingly non-biased in that aspect.

Also, I find the wording on that side of the argument rather twisted, and of itself polarizing.

Do I believe in "Global Warming"? Of course I do. That is only common sense. Otherwise, we would still have glaciers covering half of North America and Europe, and the Potomac and Thames would be freezing solid every winter. But none of that is happening, the planet has been warming for over 30k years.

I knew about this over 4 decades ago, when most of the "Climate Alarmists were still screaming "New Ice Age".

Now, if you ask me if I accept the concept of "Andromorphic Global Warming", I will say no. But do I accept "Global Warming"? No, not at all. But I knew the planet was warming when others were screaming it was cooling. Because I follow science, especially geologic history. And that shows we are in a warming cycle, and will be for another 30k plus years.

It is going to get even warmer. Technically, we are still in an ice age because typically, we have no Arctic Ice Cap at all before we even start to slide into another Ice Age. During most of the previous ones, we had Palm Trees growing around the Arctic Circle.

So why should I think this time will be any different?

And I wonder how many of that 27% even know what heliocentrism is.

 

[james bond]

We're under the age of Biden now and you can tell the level of conversation has dropped.

 

[Wuwei]

You see, here is the difference.

I have no political axe to grind at all. I am rather shockingly non-biased in that aspect.

Also, I find the wording on that side of the argument rather twisted, and of itself polarizing.

Do I believe in "Global Warming"? Of course I do. That is only common sense. Otherwise, we would still have glaciers covering half of North America and Europe, and the Potomac and Thames would be freezing solid every winter. But none of that is happening, the planet has been warming for over 30k years.

I knew about this over 4 decades ago, when most of the "Climate Alarmists were still screaming "New Ice Age".

Now, if you ask me if I accept the concept of "Andromorphic Global Warming", I will say no. But do I accept "Global Warming"? No, not at all. But I knew the planet was warming when others were screaming it was cooling. Because I follow science, especially geologic history. And that shows we are in a warming cycle, and will be for another 30k plus years.

It is going to get even warmer. Technically, we are still in an ice age because typically, we have no Arctic Ice Cap at all before we even start to slide into another Ice Age. During most of the previous ones, we had Palm Trees growing around the Arctic Circle.

So why should I think this time will be any different?

And I wonder how many of that 27% even know what heliocentrism is.

I think you read more into my post than was there. I am not a global warming zealot. If forum people want to believe one way or another I don't really care. However one rather obnoxious zealot was changing the laws of physics to claim his case, and even said quantum mechanics is fairy dust. My arguments were challenging his self-contradictory physics rather than the anti global warming stance.

As far as heliocentrism, I'm sure the survey did not use that word. It's easy to keep that question
simple.

.

 

[james bond]

I think you read more into my post than was there. I am not a global warming zealot. If forum people want to believe one way or another I don't really care. However one rather obnoxious zealot was changing the laws of physics to claim his case, and even said quantum mechanics is fairy dust. My arguments were challenging his self-contradictory physics rather than the anti global warming stance.

As far as heliocentrism, I'm sure the survey did not use that word. It's easy to keep that question
simple.

.

You just call me a troll b/c, I can only guess, it's you continue to lose your debates with me. I had to warn you about Satan just like those warning about global warming. If your atheist faith won't allow it, then I understand.

I think there's no question the Earth is warming, but the big question is how long will Earth be sustainable? We don't know so the best is to try and take care of it by cutting down use of fossil fuels and go to better energy sources that don't cause as much warming. Maybe the best we can do right now is nuclear power although it isn't the best solution.

 

[Mushroom]

You just call me a troll b/c, I can only guess, it's you continue to lose your debates with me. I had to warn you about Satan just like those warning about global warming. If your atheist faith won't allow it, then I understand.

I think there's no question the Earth is warming, but the big question is how long will Earth be sustainable? We don't know so the best is to try and take care of it by cutting down use of fossil fuels and go to better energy sources that don't cause as much warming.

*laughs*

Well, think about this. During the last interglacial, the temperatures were much hotter than they are today.

How much hotter? Well, around 40-45 degrees F hotter than the temperature even today. We had hard wood trees growing north of the Arctic Circle, and palm trees right on the edge of it. No Arctic ice cap at all, the Antarctic Ice Cap did not even reach all the way to the coast and there were plants and trees along the coast there.

And that was only about 125k years ago, and life did just fine. In fact, there was an explosion of life globally, with modern humans finally leaving Africa, and meeting their older cousins in West Asia and Europe. Humans were doing just fine on a planet where the average temperature was around 93f.

Today, the average temperature is around 56f. So we still have an increase of almost 40f globally before we even match what the last interglacial was.

This is why I always laugh at the alarmists. They are like cats, and believe nothing should ever change, and fear any change they can not control. Myself, I look at it as just another cycle, one that humans have nothing to do with and no control over. And it does not help that they use as their "baseline temperature" that of the Little Ice Age, the coldest our plant has been in over 6k years.

 

[Wuwei]

*laughs*

Well, think about this. During the last interglacial, the temperatures were much hotter than they are today.

How much hotter? Well, around 40-45 degrees F hotter than the temperature even today. We had hard wood trees growing north of the Arctic Circle, and palm trees right on the edge of it. No Arctic ice cap at all, the Antarctic Ice Cap did not even reach all the way to the coast and there were plants and trees along the coast there.

And that was only about 125k years ago, and life did just fine. In fact, there was an explosion of life globally, with modern humans finally leaving Africa, and meeting their older cousins in West Asia and Europe. Humans were doing just fine on a planet where the average temperature was around 93f.

Today, the average temperature is around 56f. So we still have an increase of almost 40f globally before we even match what the last interglacial was.

This is why I always laugh at the alarmists. They are like cats, and believe nothing should ever change, and fear any change they can not control. Myself, I look at it as just another cycle, one that humans have nothing to do with and no control over. And it does not help that they use as their "baseline temperature" that of the Little Ice Age, the coldest our plant has been in over 6k years.

FWIW I think you might have a wrong decimal point or something. There isn't a 40F temperature delta around 125K years ago. The hottest is around +25F, and that was 50 million years ago.

But you point is well taken. Rather than a survival problem I think it's more an economic problem only if the warming is too rapid for the world to adjust to it. There would be major changes in in coast lines, where various crops can grow, ocean ecology, etc. The next 20 or 30 years will tell us if we need to panic over an economic upheaval.

But I really didn't mean to hijack this thread to global warming.

From Wikipedia

.

 

[Mushroom]

FWIW I think you might have a wrong decimal point or something. There isn't a 40F temperature delta around 125K years ago. The hottest is around +25F, and that was 50 million years ago.

No, I did not. Think about it a bit, what is the climate like around the Arctic and Antarctic Circles now? Well into the sub-zero range F for most of the year.

Now, raise it up so that year-round, it is in the range of say Oregon or Northern California. That was the climate in that region during the Eemian. Raising the global temperature 40 degrees does not mean raising the entire planet by that much, planet wide the temperature only raised by around 2 degrees. But this was offset by extreme warming in the areas which before then (and still today) are kept low by the cooling effect of the ice caps. Which are still vanishing.

I do not take the "climatologist" view of conditions on the planet, I look at it through the eyes of a geologist. and look at things like albedo effect. Something I have known about for over 40 years, but most completely ignore. Back when the "New Ice Age" was the prevailing belief, my sciences teacher was explaining to us why it was wrong, and why it was going to get hotter. And how hot it would eventually get. As the melting snow cover and ice caps lowered the albedo of the planet, and caused even faster warming.

Just think on this. The climate of the Arctic Circle today? That was the climate of most of Europe and North America 30-40kya. Permafrost and tundra. That is what made N. America so great for mastodons and mammoths, and why their final stand was primarily in the tundra and permafrost regions of Siberia. But people have this amazing ability to look around them today, and not imagine what things might have been like tens of thousands of years ago. Or tens of thousands of years in the future.

Which is why I laugh whenever some "starry eyes romantic" waxes upon the "Pristine San Francisco Bay" that must have been seen by the first people to arrive in the region 30kya. Because there was no "San Francisco Bay" yet. Just a wide river valley, the coast was another 20 miles to the west.

This is why I often laugh at what I call the "lack of scientific understanding" of people. They planet is going to get hotter, and wetter. One always follows the other, and the range of annual habitation range of humans will stretch all the way to the Arctic Circle. Once a dozen thousand years or so pass while the permafrost thaws and dries out. One only has to peer back into the geologic record to see what it will be like.

But in the equatorial regions? Oh, those temperatures only change by a few degrees. During an ice age or during an interglacial, temperatures there change little. To see the real change, you have to actually look at those regions that were once frozen, and are not any more. Like say imagining when giant glaciers reached all the way to New York City, and a glacial moraine created Long Island. That was only 15 kya.

I chuckle at the thought of some brave nomadic people wandering through the area and seeing that, then saying to each other they have to stop using wood to create their fires, as the CO2 coming out was obviously making that glacier vanish. Or the sense of wonder as the former hunting range of others of the Dogger Bank was being covered by ocean.

 

[Wuwei]

FWIW I think you might have a wrong decimal point or something. There isn't a 40F temperature delta around 125K years ago. The hottest is around +25F, and that was 50 million years ago.

No, I did not. Think about it a bit, what is the climate like around the Arctic and Antarctic Circles now? Well into the sub-zero range F for most of the year. ........ etc.

When the past temperature of the earth is mentioned or occurs in a graph, it is always mean temperature unless specified otherwise. So when you said the temperature delta was 40F, I of course assumed that you were referring to mean temperature since you didn't specify that you were referring to local temperatures.

The graph I posted should have been a clue to what I was referring to. The rest of your post would have been quite unnecessary if you realized the mix up. I don't need convincing.

.

 

[Mushroom]

When the past temperature of the earth is mentioned or occurs in a graph, it is always mean temperature unless specified otherwise. So when you said the temperature delta was 40F, I of course assumed that you were referring to mean temperature since you didn't specify that you were referring to local temperatures.

The graph I posted should have been a clue to what I was referring to. The rest of your post would have been quite unnecessary if you realized the mix up. I don't need convincing.

And the way the scale slid like crazy on that chart, I almost instantly dismissed it. Starting in hundreds of millions of years, then moving into the thousands. A chart specifically created to cause panic, and not reality.

One thing I love about the "Climate Alarmists", is that they have a surprisingly narrow view of science. During the height of the Ice Age, the temperature at the Equator was only a degree or two off from where it is today. Yet, half of the Northern Hemisphere was almost permanently locked in a sub-zero climate. Yet, for some strange reason, they do not consider the radical change when the glaciers melted.

After all, how many consider the temperature of the sixth largest continent, when talking about climate? And it is really hard to justify calling it "local" when it covered almost half of the northern hemisphere. The southern was only spared because there was little land, and the large ocean to land ratio was not favorable to ice sheets. But North America, and Europe were largely covered in ice. All the way to the Alps in Europe, Kentucky and Missouri in the US.

I prefer charts such as this, to be honest.

Now 35kya, the temperatures around the Equatorial Belt were largely like they are now. But move up, they changed drastically. The green "Subtropical Zone" was at that time "Temperate". And the "Temperate Zone", that was in the "Subpolar Zone". In most on North America and Europe, everything in the "Temperate Zone" and North was firmly in the "Polar Zone".

Yet, you think that is "Local"? I guess so, as much as the Toba event was "Local".

 

[Wuwei]

And the way the scale slid like crazy on that chart, I almost instantly dismissed it. Starting in hundreds of millions of years, then moving into the thousands. A chart specifically created to cause panic, and not reality.

It was not created to cause panic. Logarithmic charts are quite common for extremely wide ranges of variables. Those charts are for scientists, not the panicky hoi polloi who shouldn't care about temperature millions of years ago. Also for more recent data there are higher resolution historic records of temperature. For ancient measurements temperatures proxies are used and have a much poorer resolution. So a logarithmic plot makes sense.

Global temperature is a world wide average. Local can mean Chicago, Texas, Africa, ... so it has no universal definition. But yes, understanding local climate and its trends is very important for various regions.

Yet, you think that is "Local"? I guess so, as much as the Toba event was "Local".

C'mon please don't try to twist my meaning, "local" does not mean the site of a super volcano nor massive asteroid hits. They gave rise to lasting global climate changes.

.