FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2024
Gutfeld!, plus Swamp Beast Sightings: As far as we know, there were no moderators at any of the Lincoln-Douglas debates.
There were no two-minute answers, and there were no one-minute responses. Given the attention spans of the day, the candidates spoke at great length.
For the record, a seat in the United States Senate was at stake. According to an ancient version of the History Channel, the seven debates operated in the manner described:
Lincoln‑Douglas Debates
Lincoln and Douglas met in seven debates between August and October 1858, located in different congressional districts around [Illinois]. In all, they traveled over 4,000 miles during the Senate campaign. While Lincoln traveled by railroad, carriage or boat, Douglas rode in a private train fitted with a cannon that fired a shot every time he arrived in a new location.
Each debate followed the same structure: an hour-long opening statement by one candidate, an hour and a half-long response by the other candidate and a half-hour rebuttal by the first candidate. Despite their length and often tedious format, the debates became a huge spectacle, attracting crowds of up to 20,000 people.
Thanks to the many reporters and stenographers who attended, and new technologies such as the telegraph and the railroad, the candidates’ arguments drew national attention, and would fundamentally alter the national debate over slavery and the rights of Black Americans.
The History Channel posted that account in 2009. As of today, the channel has largely amended the product it chooses to televise.
It has dumbed its broadcast offerings way down, apparently in a nod to public demand.
(For the record, it used to call itself The History Channel. In 2008, it renamed itself History, full stop.)
Historical offerings are way down on the History Channel! On basic cable, the channel's product is largely built around fanciful claims about ancient visitations to Earth and modern-day UFOs.
Also, the channel airs Mountain Men and Ice Road Truckers. In such ways, we the people are served!
Back to the subject at hand:
Back in 1858, tens of thousands of people were willing to stand around listening to lengthy orations. Along with the telegraph and the railroad, another technology—"Pitman shorthand"—apparently played a role in the way these famous sessions affected the national discourse.
(You can read about the role of those technologies simply by clicking here.)
As we've noted in recent weeks, an additional new technology—the rapid spread of the TV set—led to the occurrence of the Kennedy-Nixon debates more than a century later. Today, our discourse is dying under the weight of a new set of technologies—under the weight of the "democratization of media."
A bit earlier in that same 1858, Candidate Lincoln had posed an important question in his House Divided Speech. According to this account, the rail-splitter opened with a quotation from the New Testament, then stated his own basic point:
LINCOLN (June 16, 1858): "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free.
I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the other.
A government could not endure half slave and half free! Today, the question has taken a turn. We'd say it now goes like this:
Can a very large modern nation survive half Red and half Blue?
More specifically, can a modern nation survive with its means of mass communication half Red and half Blue? Because that's the arrangement under which our failing discourse—rather, our imitation of a discourse—now sputters and stumbles ahead.
Example:
It's as we noted yesterday. On Wednesday evening, an angry fellow went on the Fox News Channel and said what we show you below.
For the record, his show is a propaganda show. Every weeknight, he wedges such statements into his reliable stream of misogynistic remarks.
On Wednesday evening, millions of people saw him make the following statement. He behaves this way, in prime time, on this "cable news" channel each night:
GUTFELD (10/2/24): As usual with these debates, it was a clear three-on-one. Of course, an immediate theme was climate change, which according to all of the polling of U.S. voter concerns ranks somewhere below toenail fungus and right above the WNBA standings.
But that didn't stop Norah [O'Donnell] from declaring a global warming consensus:
O'DONNELL (videotape): Governor [Walz], your time is up. The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the earth's climate is warming at an unprecedented rate.
GUTFELD: So I guess that decides it, right? Norah has spoken, but still, the implication is utter [BLEEP]. There is no correlation between man-made climate change and extreme weather. In fact, the incidents of hurricanes have gone down, not up, in the past century.
But who cares, right? To expect Norah to know the science is like expecting P. Diddy not to have baby oil.
STUDIO AUDIENCE: [Laughter, applause]
Let's be clear! According to this very strange man, the following is true:
O'Donnell's implication was utter [BLEEP]...There is no correlation between man-made climate change and extreme weather.
As we've noted in the past, this fellow refers to climate change as one of the "major hoaxes." None of the stooges who sit on his panels ever question or challenge his various behaviors and claims.
As our flailing society devolves, the History Channel now gives us Ancient Aliens—and the Fox News Channel airs that. For the record, as best we can tell, the following is true about hurricanes:
The incidence of hurricanes seems to be largely unchanged over time. The severity of hurricanes, and the damage which results, is apparently vastly increased over the past hundred years.
The little guy cited one of those apparent facts, forgot to mention the other. Within Red America, this sort of thing transpires every night—and over here within Blue America, our big news orgs and our own cable stars uniformly avert their gaze.
(Is Hunter Biden banging or f*cking Jill Biden yet? Even when this cable star raises that question—we've recorded him doing so three separate times—Blue America's journalists act like there's nothing to look at.)
This very strange person will even do that! Can a society—can a modern nation—expect to survive this way?
Regarding the moderators at Tuesday's debate (Norah O'Donnell, Margaret Brennan), they'd been imported from CBS News, an outpost within Blue America. They decided to take a pass when the candidate from Red America blew off an important question in the manner shown:
O'DONNELL (10/1/24): ...President Trump has called climate change a hoax. Do you agree?
VANCE: Well, look, what the president has said is that if the Democrats, in particular, Kamala Harris and her leadership, if they really believe that climate change is serious, what they would be doing is more manufacturing and more energy production in the United States of America, and that's not what they're doing.
So clearly, Kamala Harris herself doesn't believe her own rhetoric on this. If she did, she would actually agree with Donald Trump's energy policies...
Does Candidate Vance believe that climate change is a hoax? When he failed to answer that basic question, the moderators simply agreed to move on.
We chatted with O'Donnell very briefly a long time ago, in the mid-1990s, when she was completely unknown. We've always admired the way she pushed back against Chris Matthews in 1999, on several occasions on Hardball, until she finally seemed to give up.
She went on to a large career. On Tuesday night, she didn't return to Candidate Vance to restate her unanswered question.
He had chosen not to answer; she chose to let it go. The same thing happened when the candidate refused to say who won the 2020 election.
Unlike in 1858, we do have moderators today. But in a nation which is half Red and half Blue, they may have been told that they need to behave like potted plants when candidates function like that.
Yesterday, the candidate finally answered the second question! As we noted yesterday afternoon, the candidate has now said that Donald J. Trump did win the 2020 election.
In Red America as well as in Blue, our news orgs are largely ignoring this remarkable statement. Can a large modern nation expect to endure under these rules of the game?
We'll close with this illustration:
Tonight, the channel still known as the History Channel will give us the people this:
History Channel, October 4, 2024
7 p.m.: The UnXplained: Deadly Cults
8 p.m.: The UnXplained: Monsters Among Us
9 p.m.: The UnXplained: The Golden Age of Pirates
10 p.m.: The Proof Is Out There: Swamp Beast Sightings, Martian Conspiracy, and Transparent Mexican Sea Monsters
Monsters and pirates and cults oh my! At 10 p.m., we'll be rewarded with Swamp Beast Sightings and Transparent Mexican Monsters.
In a somewhat similar vein, a certain "cable news" channel will be giving us Gutfeld! at that same time! Millions of people may be told that climate change is a hoax, with basic facts carefully sifted.
Speaking of the unexplained:
Over here in Blue America, our "news orgs" and our "favorite reporters and friends" will all be averting their gaze!
Nothing to look at, these giants will say. Let's take a look at the polls.
DiC - Holy smokes! Can you believe 254K new jobs in Sept? Are you willing to admit the obvious yet? The economy Biden inherited was in a deep depression, but now it is the greatest economy ever seen on any continent in all of history.
ReplyDeleteYes DG that is an impressive number of new jobs. I recall months during the Reagan Administration when around 300,000 new jobs were created, but 250,000 is an estimable number.
DeleteBiden had many months with more than 300000 new jobs created.
DeleteReagan: 16M jobs over 8 years. Biden: 16M jobs over 3.5 years. Thanks for asking for the comparison!
DeleteBTW, Trump: Minus 2.7M jobs over four years.
DeleteWilliam Jefferson Clinton: 20.9% job growth over his two terms.
DeleteAnd republican pricks spent 8 years biting at his ankle the whole time.
Yes, the Clinton economy is the only one that can compare with Biden's economy. And, DiC, Clinton used that economy to completely eliminate the deficit. And that's what we should be talking about doing now with the spectacular economy we're presently enjoying.
DeleteThis is the greatest economy ever seen on any continent in all of history? Most Americans are in debt, have no savings and are getting killed by inflation. This is the greatest economy ever seen on any continent in all of history? FUCK YOU!!!!
DeleteThe numbers don't support your contention about what most Americans are experiencing. If you are having a hard time personally, I recommend sitting down with a financial counselor who will teach you how to make a household budget and show you how to cut out those expensive coffees you drink every morning and instead make your own coffee.
Delete"DEBATE: Can a nation survive half Red and half Blue?"
ReplyDeleteRed voters and blue voters are intermixed within the states to a much greater extent than Somerby and election reporters acknowledge. Further, the largest group of people across our nation are not red or blue but do not vote.
As we go about our daily lives, unless we live in a very small town, we don't know or care about the political views of our neighbors and community members. I believe they are way more varied than Somerby portrays them.
Periodically, usually right before an election, Somerby likes to run around in circles waving his arms in the air over our deep divisions and our country going to hell. Fear drives people to the right and Republicans do what they can to evoke it, while telling us that anything Democrats care about is a hoax. Only Donald Trump can save us, protect women from anxiety, give men whatever they want, he says. Somerby wants to achieve unity by all becoming the same, except no one wants to change for him.
Meanwhile, this election is showing that we are rejecting the politics of fear, turning away from demogoguery and hate, and united over Harris/Walz and their reaffirmation of hope, joy and peace. Somerby should be more optimistic than in the past and yet he doesn't seem to be singing a different song this year.
When someone averts their gaze, what are they looking at? Somerby doesn't say they are closing their eyes, so they are seeing something. Perhaps it is something good. Perhaps we don't need to pay constant attention to Trump, Vance and the assholes shouting "look at me"? We can focus on common goals, like recovering from the hurricane, celebrating our successes and progress, joining hands and making brownies. There is a whole better world that people like Somerby are ignoring in favor of whining about Gutfeld. I often wonder why Somerby doesn't watch Colbert instead. He seems to be a happy man with a nice family who brings us a more positive vision of the future. I choose to watch that instead of whatever fear-laden soup is being served by Fox. And I will vote enthusiastically for Harris. My neighbors are doing the same and if they aren't, they have the right to choose their own path. As long as they leave my lawn sign alone. And, they do.
Yes, 66% of the voting age population votes, but you can't leave out the children and others who are ineligible. They matter too. The % who cannot vote plus the % who do not vote = 51% of all people.
DeleteSomerby seems to like heroes, cult of personalities, and such; elites reigning over everyone else. Somerby seems to find emotional comfort in this notion.
DeleteDue in large part to the democratization of media, more people now have a better understanding of figures like Lincoln, who are rightly venerated for many things but were also humans with flaws. For example, we no longer have to look at Lincoln as some kind of Jesus figure; Lincoln in those debates leading up to his election as president, did say some whacky stuff, that even at the time, a good portion of the electorate found distasteful, outright saying that Blacks were inferior to Whites. The electorate held their noses and voted for Lincoln, since most elections are really about harm reduction/lesser evil.
Somerby does not like that we now all have access to polls and can see that Harris has wiped out Trump's lead over Biden and now has consistently held a lead in the polls both nationally and in swing states - even Florida is now in play!
"Somerby does not like . . . that Harris has wiped out Trump's lead over Biden"
DeleteThis is something you made up out of thin air.
Why does Somerby never mention that Lincoln lost that election, which was conducted by the State legislature and not by direct election by individual voters, as we do now?
DeleteAlso, Somerby pretends that the History Channel has gradually become a cesspool, when it almost immediately turned to shows about Bigfoot and aliens, shortly after its formation, because there just aren't enough history enthusiasts to support their original programming ideas. Bridgerton is the only way to make history appealing to the masses. And it was more expensive to do that kind of programming at the inception of the cable channel than it is now. So it isn't that people are dumber now, but that the economics of making history shows profitable are such that only Ken Burns knows how to do it successfully. He gets grants and appears on Public TV.
Somerby knows this, but it doesn't fit his political agenda to tell the truth about anything here, including Lincoln's political career or The History channel.
When Lincoln was finally elected President, there were four political parties, not two, because the blue and the red parties were both split in half by the issue of slavery. Somerby prefers to pretend that Lincoln's time was just like ours and that the division Lincoln talked about was the same as ours, when the times were very different. Somerby isn't ignorant, so that means he is being devious and misleading people for a reason, which makes him untrustworthy, in my opinion.
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/ces0000000001?output_view=net_1mth
ReplyDeleteThis chart helps put things in context. We had a single month of excellent job growth amidst a year of mediocre job growth.
lol.
DeleteYou funny.
DiC - That's borderline chart fraud. If you put the Y axis such that it can handle the extraordinary 20M loss in a month, then a 200K gain, which is 1/100 of 20M, looks like a tiny blip. Which is what you're trying to pretend.
DeleteJust admit it. Biden has presided over an economic miracle.
Good luck getting on that perpetual merry-go-round with Dickhead in Cal. Been there - done that. It saves a lot of time if you just tell him to fuck off.
DeleteDG - Yes - if you look at chart as shown, that would be misleading. However, being a numbers professional, I magnified the chart in order to look at the pattern of recent months. The magnified version demonstrates the accuracy of my comment.
DeleteLogically, what matters is the number of jobs created in a given time period, not how evenly distributed the job creation was.
DeleteThey could all have been created in a nanosecond. What does it matter?
"We had a single month of excellent job growth amidst a year of mediocre job growth."
DeleteI don't think it's "accurate" at all for you to say that there was a year of "mediocre job growth" under Biden. What "year" are you are you referring to, and what years were better?
It matters because we want to make predictions. Is the excellent month a precursor of continuing excellent job growth? Or is it just an outlier? We don’t know at this point in time.
DeleteDG - in answer to your questions, I was referring to the prior months of this year. There were years during the Reagan Administration that were a lot better than 2024.
DeleteDiC - I really think your partisanship is blinding you to the obvious. We have robust growth, full employment, stable prices, and surging equity markets. It just doesn't get any better than this.
Deletehttps://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/articles/longest-consecutive-positive-monthly-job-growth-u-s-history/
DeleteIn the first 2 1/2 years after Trump took office, job growth was 3.1 million. This is around 5 times the rate in 3024
Correction — I was wrong about 5 times the rate
Deleteit was growth of 3.9 million jobs in 1 1/2 years.
I agree that the economy is doing fine now, but it’s hardly exceptional.I
"It matters because we want to make predictions."
DeletePredictions of future job growth would not look at the distribution of job growth over time, but at the causes of job growth and whether these, or other causes, will exist in the future.
Robert Reich:
DeleteToday's strong jobs report is another reminder that you don't grow the economy through trickle down economics. You grow it by investing in workers. When workers have more to spend, the economy grows, and businesses create more jobs.
Trickle-down Trumpism is the opposite of this.
Hector — assigning causes is an uncertain process. What were the causes of September’s substantial job growth, and why didn’t these causes produce substantial job growth in August? I can’t answer this question.
DeleteLook, here's the story of Trump: He inherited a great economy, but did not use that economy to reduce the deficit. Instead, he cut taxes and increased spending, thereby exploding, rather than reducing, the deficit.
DeleteHere's the story of Biden: He inherited a terrible economy and healed it in record time.
The fact is Trump inherited an economy with all the main trends on an upward trajectory.
DeleteDuring Trump's reign that trajectory continued on a similar path, the slope did not increase (DIC claims to be a "numbers professional" but this is patently bogus). It continued...until Trump's disastrous incompetency with handling the pandemic (which in all likelihood did not come from a lab) when everything fell off a cliff, except for wealthy people, who just got wealthier, at everyone else's expense.
Our economy was really humming back in the 50s-60s, in the aftermath of the the New Deal and further motivated by a progressive marginal tax system with the top rate in the 70-90% range.
Reagan destroyed all that and we have been suffering since with the largest wealth redistribution in history, with 53+ trillion transferred from the bottom 90% to the top 1% since 1981; all the wealth generated from labor, denied to labor and instead going to those who least need it and least deserved it - such is the way of capitalism and it's latest iteration called neoliberalism, which are both manifestations of the thousands year struggle for dominance, an emergent circumstance that goes against our innate nature.
I said that's the story of Trump, but it's the story of Republican presidents in general. They get handed a great economy from Dems; they cut taxes and increase spending, exploding the deficit; and then they hand a trashed economy back to Dems. Rinse and repeat.
DeleteSome one should remind DinC that today’s MAGA would have zero respect for Reagan.
DeleteActually both parties are currently committed to exploding the deficit. Put another way, it would require extreme measures not to explode the deficit. Neither party comes close to espousing the necessary actions.
DeleteOne party actually eliminated the deficit, and in the face of unanimous opposition from the other.
DeleteYes, President Clinton had a year with a budget surplus by not cutting taxes. Newt Gingrich and the Republicans helped by holding down spending. Business helped by having a booming economy that produced lots of tax revenue.
DeleteToday's Dems are not going to produce a budget deficit, nor are the Republicans. The most recent year had almost $2 trillion of deficit, despite good prosperity.
In the early Bush II years, Bush's team was worried not only that the deficit, but also that the entire debt would soon be eliminated. They were worried because they didn't know what to do with the surplus (buy stocks in companies, picking winners and losers?). So, they blew everything (and much more) on tax cuts and needless war.
DeleteWhat would you prefer, Dickhead? A $2 trillion deficit but elimination of all child poverty, or a $2 trillion deficit with the top 0.1% getting another huge tax cut? Not all deficits are created equal you know.
DeleteMr. Andrea Mitchel testified in support of Bush's tax cut to congress that it would be awful if we started paying down our national debt too fast. You can't make this shit up.
DeleteDiC - Here's the thing. Republicans will always be irresponsible -- the party exists to cut taxes for rich people. In good times, when money is plentiful, they will say it's a good time for a tax cut. In bad times, when money is not plentiful, they will say we must stimulate the economy with a tax cut. Tax cuts are always and everywhere the answer.
DeleteThe Dems tried to be responsible, but what's the point? If they do the politically suicidal work of increasing taxes and cutting spending, and their hard work results in a surplus, the Repubs will just fritter it away with tax cuts when they get in power.
My point: Republicans are thoroughly irresponsible in a way that makes it difficult, if not impossible, for Dems to be responsible.
"I agree that the economy is doing fine now,"
DeleteGame over.
"Biden has presided over an economic miracle."
DeleteFUCK YOU!!!!! STOP SPREADING PROPAGANDA. STICK BIDEN'S MIRACLE UP YOUR ASSHOLE! The economy for a vast majority of Americans SUCKS!!!!!!!!!
Bullshit like "Biden has presided over an economic miracle" is going to get Trump elected. It's so offensive.
DeleteSome DNC operative's blog wants you to think "Biden has presided over an economic miracle".
DeleteFIFY
Ronald Reagan was able to get the Unemployment rate down to 5%.
DeleteAverage Unemployment rate of the Biden Presidency: 4.11%.
Reagan was able to get the inflation rate down to 4%.
Current inflation rate of the Biden Presidency: 2.9%
Why isn't the "liberal media" (LO-fucking L), touting Biden's "Morning in America" economy 24/7, like they did for Regan's economy?
Biden is an economic genius, pushing all the right buttons, making all the right decisions to bring about this economic miracle now raining down on us. Something Trump could never do.
DeleteDG @ 3:36 - The United States government had a budget surplus of $236 billion when President Bill Clinton left office in 2000:
DeleteThe surplus was the largest in US history at the time. It was also the result of the first four consecutive years of budget surpluses in over 70 years.
Bill Clinton, a Democrat. So much For DavidinCal's specious claim that both parties are budget busters.
I didn't say both parties WERE budget busters. I said that they currently ARE budget busters. Economic conditions today are different from what they were 25 to 30 years ago.
DeleteFrom this summer, and the economy has done better since:
Deletehttps://www.forbes.com/sites/richardmcgahey/2024/06/07/record-breaking-accomplishments-on-jobs-and-unemployment-under-biden/
DIC and the sky is falling bullshit artists on this thread have no grounds to stand on here. Historically, Democratic administrations have done far better economically than Republican ones, dating back beyond a half century, in terms of job growth, employment, GNP growth, inflation, markets and virtually any parameter of economic health measured. Donald J Trump stated this in an interview, years before he became demented. Notice wage growth in the lowest sectors under Biden, in the Forbes article. This is bottom up success in building the economy. As usual, DIC is engaged in a fantasy world of his construction in which this country is some version of whatever Trump says it is.
5:49 - I guess the difference between us is that I know how to look up the numbers on FRED, while you know how to press the all-caps key.
DeleteBob mocks Gutfeld for saying, "In fact, the incidents of hurricanes have gone down, not up, in the past century." Take a look at actual numbers. Hurricane frequency was considerably higher during 1931 - 1960 than it was from 1961 - today. https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
ReplyDeleteBTW O'Donnell had an exaggeration worthy of Donald Trump when she asserted, "The overwhelming consensus among scientists is that the earth's climate is warming at an unprecedented rate." The earth is certainly warming, but there have been warming periods throughout the earth's history. We don't know how fast the planet warmed during past warming periods.
you're supporting a lunatic who raves on a daily basis about batteries, sharks, and his delirious imagination about how wind power works, so you need to sit this one out, you fucking freak.
DeleteTrump and most of the GOP say it’s a hoax. Meanwhile, the consensus:
Deletehttps://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/scientific-consensus/
In it it states:
“Earth’s climate is now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, primarily as a result of human activities." (2018, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)
So O’Donnell left out the “ history of modern civilization“ part. How is that an equivalent exaggeration to “global warming is a hoax?”
David,
DeleteI'll be happy to tell DeSantis and Abbott to go fuck themselves, when they ask for federal emergency funds, especially if I can cite you as the reason.
Before you decide whether global warming is a fraud, you need to decide what you mean by "global warming." If you take the phrase literally, then it's just a descriptive statement, not calling for any action. Like saying, "The sky is blue."
DeleteBut, people don't use the term in its straightforward meaning. Belief in global warming is close to a religion for some people. For them, saying "global warning is real" isn't just saying the planet is warming. It's saying that extreme weather events have been rapidly increasing. It's saying that global warming will be a calamity of historic proportions. It's saying that the UN models for global warming are reliable. It's saying that incredibly expensive measures must be taken right now. It's saying that current programs and policies will succeed in reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. For some people, it means it's already too late and the earth is doomed.
I would say that global warming models are a fraud. They have never worked. Yes, the models say the earth is warming and it did warm, but a straight line fit would do the same.
Fraud means the models are intended to deceive. Models vary but that doesn’t imply fraud. Our weather models vary too but are still useful for their purposes.
DeleteYes, IMO the climate models are intended to deceive. The deception isn't that they're making predictions they don't believe. The fraudulent claim is that the models are good enough that they have something to tell us.
DeleteBTW this sort of fraud is very common. I've had modelers try to sell me models that I considered worthless and flawed.
What do climate scientists gain by telling you that a model is predicting we need to reduce the carbon in the atmosphere in order to prevent more warming? It isn't as though they are selling $1K watches smothered in diamonds.
DeleteTwo things @7:15
Delete1. For a scientist to have a reliable model yields publications, prestige, plush meetings, tenure, etc. In fact, all we really know is that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming and planet has been warming, so it will probably continue to warm.
2. In the past there were very specific actions to punish researchers who disputed the models showing warming. This was exposed in a set of e-mails that were leaked. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
Now that nearly everyone agrees that carbon is important to climate change and that warming is occurring, there is no point rehashing past disputes, but it does seem to me that those who were wrong about climate should not have prevailed. Why should wrong research have been rewarded (no matter what motivated it)?
DeleteI am a published academic myself, and I can assure you that publications, tenure, plush meetings (which aren't all that plush) and so on are not worth jeopardizing your professional reputation. These climate change deniers were also get money for their efforts. Now that we know that carbon DOES contribute to global warming, we can work on dealing with that problem, without distraction by industry-funded sell-outs who would rather be rich than have the prestige of integrity and being right in one's research efforts.
@8:17 -- thanks for your input. My wife was a joint author on over 100 papers. They were essential in keeping her job and being promoted to Assoc Professor with tenure.
DeleteYou slipped something into your comment. Yes, we know that carbon does contribute to global warming, but we don't know that this is a problem. As of today, the extra CO2 has probably done more good than harm. The extra CO2 contributed to a greener planet, more forested area, and more food.
Historically, cold periods did more harm than warm periods. BTW a week or so ago, the Washington Post reported an analysis showing that the earth's current temperature is cool relative to the past.
The earth will survive warming but people may not. The dinosaurs didn’t.
DeleteWith over 100 publications why wasn’t she promoted to full professor?
DeleteShe didn’t push hard enough.
DeleteFrom global warming to unemployment to social security solvency, DIC has a self important need to question those with credentials that dwarf those he has accrued as a retired actuary who gets most of his information from right wing web sites. Climate change and global warming is perhaps the best example today of his dishonest prevarications. His assertion that a faculty member with over one hundred publications failed to achieve full professorship because of a lack of drive is demeaning to his wife, if true, which it likely is not.
Delete"a week or so ago, the Washington Post reported an analysis showing that the earth's current temperature is cool relative to the past"
DeleteYes, David. But at the time of those higher temperature, the earth was home to exactly 0 members of the species Homo Sapiens or any other higher order hominids.
The problem isn’t Red v Blue. It’s that Red lies and cheats shamelessly, and promotes hoaxes and conspiracies to exert control. And no, THAT situation isn’t tenable long-term.
ReplyDeleteBreaking news: I’m now being told by ardent truth teller Donald j Trump that those jobs numbers are because illegals are getting all the jobs.
ReplyDeleteJust so you’ll know what DiC will be saying next…
The number of hurricanes has not increased, but the number of very intense hurricanes has increased:
ReplyDelete"Stronger hurricanes are becoming more common in a warmer climate. Researchers suggest that the most damaging U.S. hurricanes are three times more frequent than 100 years ago, and that the proportion of major hurricanes (Category 3 or above) in the Atlantic Ocean has doubled since 1980."
https://www.edf.org/climate/how-climate-change-makes-hurricanes-more-destructive#:~:text=Stronger%20hurricanes%20are%20becoming%20more,Ocean%20has%20doubled%20since%201980.
Also, the number of people living in FL has greatly increased since the 1930-60s. That means that the destruction is having a bigger impact on people living in the path of more major hurricanes. You can measure that in recovery costs.
When someone wants to tell you that the number of hurricanes has not increased, so global warming is a hoax, I would be suspicious of their motives.