Dr. Strangelove

Climate change is not happening was a very common climate denial said often, most recently by the guy you voted for twice. His official stance was "it's a hoax by China". Climate denial often goes into, well it's happening but it's not caused by Humans which seems to be what this quack on Twitter is suggesting. I disparaged Michael because his stance on solar panels is beyond idiotic. The rest of his takes are equally stupid - it's why there are hundreds of organizations that take stances that are much different and suggest that human behavior is responsible, the ramifications of which are enormous, and what needs to be done to address it. I also disparaged anybody else who takes the Trump stance that is a hoax by China, which is why I've provided you with multiple sources. Really? This is your take? You're well aware that humans are responsible for fossil fuel use which leads to carbon emissions, which causes climate change. Honestly the rest of this post is so insane that it's not worth responding to, other than it's strange - and I mean this completely honestly - that individuals are so wrapped up in their political identity that they're willing to take such crazy positions despite overwhelming consensus to the contrary. Not only that, what you can see and observe in the world around you every day, especially this summer. How you're able to construct an alternate reality and live in it just so your worldview makes sense is utterly astonishing. I truly don't know how you do it.

The pictures are randomly taken and the graphs provided without context. The pictures are small, the sources are not clickable, and often it's just a picture of a random turtle, wildfire, or a screenshot from a website. This is not the source you think it is, and why is provided as the Holy Grail of climate denial says a lot. This list of over 200 organizations holds the position that climate change is caused by humans. Each have cited studies, research, and papers that confirm climate change. It easily disputes the hodgepodge eye-sore website listed by the quack on Twitter. If by "didn't dispute a single thing" you mean "Dr. Strangelove pointed out the dishonesty expressed in one of the first tweets on his timeline about solar panels and how it easily shows he's a dishonest quack acting in bad faith arguments while simultaneously listing multiple sources explaing why he's wrong" then you are correct. His entire Twitter account is basically quackery, dishonesty, and selective. It's a perfect distillation on how climate denial has went from "its not happening at all" to "its happening but things aren't so bad" in less than a decade. They had to make this pivot because the evidence is overwhelming. You are welcome to explain why the vast majority of science and scientists - 97% (sorry I said 98 earlier, that was what I thought off the top of my head) are wrong. Massive deep-state conspiracy? Liberal scientists can't be trusted?

I referenced the solar panel tweet because of two reasons: 1. It's the first tweet in a thread you referenced in your own post. 2. It's a perfect example of somebody arguing in bad faith with something easily disproven because it's been studied many times. As for this post, it's just a combination of random graphs and data points without the ability to check the sources of what provides them. It's literally dozens of JPEGs cropped onto a web page, mostly hard to read and difficult to see where they came from. It's pretty obvious it's a climate denial farm masquerading as a place to tell viewers that everything is honky-dory. It's easy, with any effort whatsoever, to find overwhelming evidence of human caused climate change. I referenced and cited numerous sources on climate change in the post you quoted. You just don't want to believe in it for some reason. Legitimate question: why don't you believe in overwhelming scientific consensus? Is it Political identity? This is fair. I would like to be clear about my intentions: I don't think I'm going to convince @Archy1221 of anything, that's simply not possible. I do get entertainment from his posts, however. Particularly when his worldview confronts reality. Whether or not it's trying to justify voting for Trump, supporting DeSantis, or trying to explain while he's right and 97% of scientists are wrong, it's funny to me. I'm a masochist.

If you're referring to this guy, specifically then sure. He's a quack intentionally trying to stir up gullible people. At worst he's intentionally trying to stir up climate denial, at best he's stupid. He starts off by citing that anonymous "people" claim solar panels don't produce carbon. This is a tactic made famous by Trump citing unnamed "people" who "claim X BUT", however in reality nobody, in fact, claims this. Making anything emits carbon and doing so in a poor country with fewer regulations is going to result in more emissions. This isn't disputed by anybody and, frankly, this should be your first clue that the person you're engaging with is not to be taken seriously. He framed this in a way to make it sound like teh Libs DUPED us all, because manufacturing solar panels PRODUCES CARBON. Did you know that? Stupid libs. But... the guy tweeting knows that the Inflation Reduction Act signed by Biden aims to increase domestic solar panel production. The guy also knows that the amount of solar emissions used to manufacture solar panels is much less than the amount of emissions saved in their use. There are multiple studies, including this one by the U.S. Department of Energy, which estimates its takes 1 to 4 years to "payback" their carbon debt. Panels typically have a lifespan of 25 to 30 years, so the math is pretty easy. This data is confirmed by studies all around the globe. The Solar ERoEI is pretty good. Now, if you're referring to Climate Change as a whole, well, the evidence is overwhelming. NASA sums it up nicely, while oil and gas companies don't outright deny it anymore. They just try to delay action (they've known for decades). Honestly, I'll end my past with this instead of posting source after source you're going to ignore... Climate change caused by humans is one of the most studied aspects of science. It's also one of the most agreed upon. It's not even close to being a debate.

Who's right, this guy or 98% of scientists? This guy is... not even close to being correct. This guy's entire schtick is that we can out innovate climate change by engineering more heat tolerant food, by engineering stronger builds so they don't have to be rebuilt when slapped by a Hurricane. This guy is so completely pathetic, trying to up his Twitter engagement by arguing against what is easily one of the most agreed upon and EASILY verifiable things in science.

The reason I bring this up a lot is because history is important. Look, as pointed out, you voted for Trump after glossing over decades of his incompetence and his moronic behavior because he said and did things you liked. You were WARNED, repeatedly, of what his character was and what his presidency would be like. And now he's under multiple criminal indictments and is going down as one of the biggest buffoons in American history. You voted for the guy twice and dismissed his involvement in January 6th by blaming Democrats for breaking him after he lost the 2020 election. And, here we are yet again, repeating history by warning you about DeSantis. He's a buffoon, you're being warned and once again, you're ignoring it. It's obvious to anybody who takes more than a few seconds to look but you can't or won't. This brings us full circle to somehow defending how the State of Florida is deciding to teach about slavery. It's summed up nicely in @Scarlet's post: the issue is that it focuses on issues that soften and whitewash slavery and omits the portions that don't. Is it historically accurate to say that some slaves used their plantation skills to better their lives? Yes, in much the same way that some Jews were treated well by the Nazi's. But it's stupid to overlook the extremely rare circumstances when that did happen rather than completely focusing on the overwhelming barbarism that occurred in both these instances. There are numerous small but subtle ways the curriculum softens the blow of slavery while still teaching the overall history, and that's exactly the problem.

What is he supposed to do, suddenly realize the person and party he supports is genuinely dangerous, moronic, and downright bad? There isn't any low his preferred party can find that he won't rationalize his support for. I personally find Conservatives justifying their continued support for the GOP, despite seemly dangerous new lows found daily and evidence of Climate Change ravaging the environment all around them, to be extremely entertaining and funny.

It was... being loud about what was supposed to be the quiet part.

You are absolutely correct! I'd like to add, this video is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm unsure if this is from the campaign itself or if a fan created it... but it speaks to how bizarrely online his messaging and schtick is.

I'll be interested to read a book written about his campaign and how it failed so spectacularly. It seems to me that DeSantis's team ran a campaign that was overly "Online". They talked about issues that only morons on Twitter care about and they seemed unable to understand the difference between what far Right Twitter wanted to hear and the electorate at large. DeSantis also has the charisma of a baked potato which doesn't help him.

We're quickly reverting back to the Tan Suit of discourse on the Right. Good news is that means they don't have anything to actually complain about. The bad news is that Republicans still show up to the voting both which is terrifying.

It's what plants crave.

Democrats and liberal pundits are such climate doomers. They show data and click bait headlines that show the number of heat deaths have increased 250% in just 3 years, and we're only halfway through summer, they could be spinning this positively that this is going to be the coolest and probably the smallest amount of heat deaths Arizona will experience for the rest of our lives (and the lives of our kids, grand kids, great grand kids....). The entire rhetoric around climate change needs to change.

The last part of your post is true, and yes the situation at the border is difficult. The issue is Republicans framing it as a problem solely caused by Biden administration policies that would magically be fixed. This isn't true, unless Congress acts - which they don't - there isn't much a Democrat or Republican administration can do.

I think that's partially fair, half of Democrats at the time seemed in favor of war. The public, however, deserves equal culpability. They wanted to blame somebody for 9/11 and they were easily manipulated into favoring war, punishing politicians as anti Patriotic if they did not. And I apologize, I was not referring to you leaving out GWB's Iraq escapade as you leaving that detail out. I was referring to George Bush and other neoconservatives who invaded a country for the lulz.

I'm increasingly convinced they aren't really trying. What they are doing is motivating their base, who drink this stuff like it's Brawndo: The Thirst Mutilator. It helps their voters think Democrats are just as bad as they are. It rationalizes continued support for the bad guys.

Is there a particular policy choice or law the administration is not following or not implanting that would fix this? The reality is that unless Congress radically changes immigration law, which isn't going to happen, they're doing the best job they reasonably can do.

I know you added George Bush invading a country for teh lolz. But the effects of that choice were massive. Destabilizing an entire region, hundreds of thousands of displaced Iraqi citizens, the use of torture (that hidden government studies show revealed no unknown intel), trillion of dollars spent, America's standing in the world tarnished, and thousands of American soldiers killed for no reason. The Tan Suit scandal should be up there with Watergate. What people don't understand is that entire thing was a mainstream media Psy-Op to hide the most scandalous event in America's history... proving healthcare to our poorest and most vulnerable.

They do push out players, and I'm with you on the modern day practice on how it's used. Particularly when those pushed out players can still finish school on scholarship. I will also add that Alabama/Georgia/Ohio State also have a handful of players leaving for the NFL early, which inflates class size as well. My main point in this discussion regarding class size is really that programs are usually going to attract the same amount of talent year-to-year. Sometimes those classes are big and they finish ranked higher then normal, sometimes they finish small and finish lower. But once 85 players are on scholarship, the number of Blue Chip players is going to be about the same. Nebraska, for example, consistently ranks around ~22nd in the College Team talent metric and had ~20 Blue Chip players on its roster at any given time. Iowa, Wisconsin, NC State, etc. are all the same, any given year they tend to have about the same amount of talent on the roster.

I get the point, but I don't think it's that simple. It's a lot more like the cop HAS to choose one or the other to stay on the road. One of those drivers is drunk, willfully ignorant of laws, and is driving into oncoming traffic going 200mph. The other is an old guy going 10 over the speed limit and occasionally veers onto the rumble-strip on the shoulder. While the cop can tell himself that both are breaking the law and may not meet his personal standard of what constitutes a driver he'd want driving on the road, there's a very clear choice to make here and it's not a difficult one. And I get the frustration with the two party system, but until our elections are changed massively, small protest votes aren't doing to do anything to change that. I also understand that the voters we're talking about here in this thread are voting in areas that don't matter - ironically because Republicans are not in favor of eliminating the Electoral College - the sentiment for why they want to vote third party is not unique. It's why No Labels is a looming threat to hand Trump and Republicans a major victory if they get on the ballot.

It absolutely is a false equivalency and I'd say your standards as a voter are intentionally being setup in a way to make you frustrated with politics. If Trump doesn't pass your test as a voter for the multitude of obvious reasons, that's fine, but to them cite the other candidates issue being his age to make him equally unworthy of your vote, well I don't know what to tell you. The bolded is absolutely false - the voting public is wholeheartedly responsible for how political parties operate. Biden won his nomination against younger, more progressive candidates- I did not vote for him- via an established process established by voters.

You are correct, larger class sizes means the chances on a recruit translating into a starter is higher - which is why the totality of recruiting over a 4 year time span matters. Teams with big classes will eventually recruit small ones, and the reverse is true for teams with small recruiting classes who eventually recruit big ones. The respective programs' ability to recruit 4* talent doesn't chance much, their class ranking just depends on if their senior class happens to be big or small that year. I also used Georgia and Oregon as a comparison between teams that both recruit well on paper, but a previous on field result hopefully illustrates the difference of a 5* players and a team of mostly 4* players. It's an extreme example, but the talent gap between teams is large and unfortunately the talent is consolidating more each season. You are correct about the portal: it has been the only place Nebraska found good players under Frost, and will likely stay part of Rhule's plans going forward.

That's just because the recruiting points system is one of many ways to measure a team. The Blue Chip ratio, what I was referring to in my example, is a much better way to measure the gap between teams. It's why you can predict who's better between two teams with lots of points - like Georgia and Oregon - but the on field results are quite different. A class with 25 recruits and 4 Blue chip players is going to result in more "points" than a class with 17 recruits and 4 Blue chip players. But really, the on field results aren't that much different. The program with only 17 recruits is presumably a roster already full of 3* players... it's not the lack of ability to court them, their roster usually already has them. The Blue Chip ratio attempts to separate impact players and predict the best teams, and it's pretty accurate I'm doing so.

I don't want people to vote Dem, I want them to reject authoritarian elements that seek to undermine the country. What I don't get is the false equivalency between the two: one guy is actively dangerous and is publicly talking about ways to broadly expand executive power and the other guy is... old. Therefore you're frustrated and won't vote for either. These two aren't equivalent but your vote is signaling as much. Ask Jill Stein voters how that worked. What I'm thing to warn you about is the idea of "my vote doesn't matter" is a rationalization every frustrated voter is going to say no matter what state they're in. By rejecting that idea we can hopefully force the GOP to reorient themselves away from the populism that is choking them.

Unfortunately that's not how measuring anything works. If you're in a race to run a mile and the 1st place guy ran it in 4 minutes, the 11th place guy at 5 minutes, @Archy1221 finished 21st at 10 minutes and the guy who finished 50th ran it in 11 minutes, who are you closer to? The guy who finished in 11th place or the guy in 50th? Recruiting is no different. Last year, Nebraska finished 25th with 4 blue chip recruits. The team that finished 11th had 19 blue chip recruits. 4.5x the amount. Meanwhile the team that finished 50th had 3 blue chip recruits. Which team is Nebraska closer to?