Just curious

[Texxan52]

I'm just curious if Fox entertainment fans (their own lawyers say they are not a news channel) are embarrassed to have repeated what they heard on Fox entertainment such as:
1.There is no such thing as climate change.
2. Take invermectine for Covid.
3. Take Bleach for Covid.
4. The 2020 election was stolen...they paid a billion dollars for that lie.
5. Cutting capital gains tax will stimulate the economy. All it does is allow trust fund babies like Tramp an George Bush to pay lower tax on their income than people that work for a living.
6. Corporations don't pay tax people pay tax. See 5 above.
7. reagan's trickle down economics is a valid plan. Hasn't happened yet.
8. Republicans want a balanced budget. Before Tramp the largest % increase in the national debt was Regan. As far as Deb, Tramp and the Republican congressman were in a league if his own.
9. Republican Presidents are good for Business. Just look at stock market prices in the last 60 years in republican versus democratic presidents.
10. Vice President Harris is afraid to debate Tramp. Who won?
11. Vice President Harris is afraid to do interviews. Very funny.
Just curious, are you embarrassed you were conned by Fox entertainment or to embarrassed to admit it!
o.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Texxan52

I'm just curious if Fox entertainment fans (their own lawyers say they are not a news channel) are embarrassed to have repeated what they heard on Fox entertainment such as:
1.There is no such thing as climate change.
2. Take invermectine for Covid.
3. Take Bleach for Covid.
4. The 2020 election was stolen...they paid a billion dollars for that lie.
5. Cutting capital gains tax will stimulate the economy. All it does is allow trust fund babies like Tramp an George Bush to pay lower tax on their income than people that work for a living.
6. Corporations don't pay tax people pay tax. See 5 above.
7. reagan's trickle down economics is a valid plan. Hasn't happened yet.
8. Republicans want a balanced budget. Before Tramp the largest % increase in the national debt was Regan. As far as Deb, Tramp and the Republican congressman were in a league if his own.
9. Republican Presidents are good for Business. Just look at stock market prices in the last 60 years in republican versus democratic presidents.
10. Vice President Harris is afraid to debate Tramp. Who won?
11. Vice President Harris is afraid to do interviews. Very funny.
Just curious, are you embarrassed you were conned by Fox entertainment or to embarrassed to admit it!
o.

Good thread! It's going to be hard going off topic on this one.

I beg to disagree on several of your points.

Ivermectin probably was helpful in treating COVID. It was part of the protocol for treatment in some hospitals for people who didn't have severe disease. With Paxlovid though, why take it now?

Fox never proposed injecting bleach.

As to the capital gains tax, you're poorly informed. Please see Lusty Lad's excellent thread on the Trump (corporate) tax cut paying for itself and mine, how are we going to pay for all this shit. If you look a couple of pages back you'll find them. Please read both threads and come back and report. Biden wants to raise the maximum federal capital gains rate to 44%, when the rate that maximizes revenues for the U.S. government is around 28% according to the Congressional Budget Office. How much sense does that make?

Reagan and Democrats worked shoulder to shoulder to reform the tax system. Along with Paul Volcker, they brought inflation down, saved social security and Medicare, and brought down maximum marginal tax rates from nosebleed rates, 70% for individuals if I remember correctly. Yes they bumped up the federal debt with defense expenditures, but in the process ended the cold war and provided Clinton and a Republican Congress with a peace dividend that enabled them to balance the budget.

Neither Republican nor Democrat politicians want a balanced budget. They want to spend like drunken sailors and kick the can down the road for the next generation.

Trying to correlate stock prices, GDP or employment growth with the party of the president is a fools game. There are so many other things going on, like improvements in technology, globalization, Fed policy, the business cycle, wars, pandemics, OPEC pushing up oil prices, and Congressional influence that usually who's president doesn't make a big difference.

Corporations do pay tax; however, with a federal tax rate of 35% and state rates up to 12%, many of our companies weren't competitive. Please see references to the NBER paper in Lusty Lad's said Excellent Thread, which show how in the long term federal revenues will go up as a result of the rate cut by Trump/McConnell/Ryan.

Harris has only done one softball interview since becoming the candidate that I'm aware of. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

If you want nonstop, 24 hour a day propaganda, tune into MSNBC! You'll only get that about 12 hours a day on Fox.

[cc314]

Fox news, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias/
MSNBC, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/msnbc/
Just for yucks, you wouldn't think it by its name, Christian Science News Monitor, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/chris...ience-monitor/
Pretty much same results in graph form (but "not TV, print, or radio), https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart

Invermectin, significant difference for needing mechanical ventilation and adverse events, but mortality, nope, https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...024036788#sec3

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Texxan52

I'm just curious if Fox entertainment fans (their own lawyers say they are not a news channel) are embarrassed to have repeated what they heard on Fox entertainment such as:
1.There is no such thing as climate change.
there isn't prove otherwise.

2. Take invermectine for Covid.
it was proven effective .. ask yourself why Big Pharma opposed it .. profits

3. Take Bleach for Covid.
Disinfectant Trump never said Bleach

4. The 2020 election was stolen...they paid a billion dollars for that lie.

it was by the media .. and "others"

5. Cutting capital gains tax will stimulate the economy. All it does is allow trust fund babies like Tramp an George Bush to pay lower tax on their income than people that work for a living.
it would. ask Warren Buffet.

6. Corporations don't pay tax people pay tax. See 5 above.
yes they do. a nonsense claim

7. reagan's trickle down economics is a valid plan. Hasn't happened yet.
Reagan rescued the US from the Democrats Carter Economy .. prove that wrong

8. Republicans want a balanced budget. Before Tramp the largest % increase in the national debt was Regan. As far as Deb, Tramp and the Republican congressman were in a league if his own.
we do. the real problem is tax and spend Democrats. prove that wrong

9. Republican Presidents are good for Business. Just look at stock market prices in the last 60 years in republican versus democratic presidents.
the stock market has gone up under every president since Truman. even Carter. lol

10. Vice President Harris is afraid to debate Tramp. Who won?
she's afraid to debate. she lost her chance to win over undecided voters. she lost
11. Vice President Harris is afraid to do interviews. Very funny.
she is. she's tanked every softball "interview" since the debate. all two of them. bahhaaa

Just curious, are you embarrassed you were conned by Fox entertainment or to embarrassed to admit it!
are you embarrassed you were conned by ABC,CNN and MSDNC .. er MSNBC.?

o.

thank you valued poster

[cc314]

Climate change, https://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...fire-hurricane

Stolen election: still waiting on evidence of it being stolen (but "we have theories"). Info on the lawsuit, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-the-end-of-it

Debate: it happened. There are opinions about who won. Whoever won or lost the debate, the election matters more.

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Good thread! It's going to be hard going off topic on this one.


If you want nonstop, 24 hour a day propaganda, tune into MSNBC! You'll only get that about 12 hours a day on Fox.

Don't forget fox streaming for those unfortunate folks who are working daytime. Otherwise you got Guttfeld or re-runs of the imperial ranter- Levin. LOL

The curious thing about Fox is they don't stay on one conspiracy too long- too many to keep track of, unless it's about someone's emails, or Fauci, or the fine patriots on Jan 6th. Oh yeah...and which one of them is writing a new book on their personal take on religion, freedom and the evil democrats. I shake my head in wonder in that I'm not sure who's buying that outhouse material, but I guess someone is. I'm more curious about that!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

Don't forget fox streaming for those unfortunate folks who are working daytime. Otherwise you got Guttfeld or re-runs of the imperial ranter- Levin. LOL

The curious thing about Fox is they don't stay on one conspiracy too long- too many to keep track of, unless it's about someone's emails, or Fauci, or the fine patriots on Jan 6th. Oh yeah...and which one of them is writing a new book on their personal take on religion, freedom and the evil democrats. I shake my head in wonder in that I'm not sure who's buying that outhouse material, but I guess someone is. I'm more curious about that!

Good for you for tuning into Fox Eyecu2. I am similarly entertained by some of the talking heads on MSNBC. CNN just isn't what it used to be, with Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo gone.

I think we're still on topic here,

Originally Posted by Texxan52

I'm just curious if Fox entertainment fans (their own lawyers say they are not a news channel) are embarrassed to have repeated what they heard on Fox entertainment such as...

Just curious, are you embarrassed you were conned by Fox entertainment or to embarrassed to admit it!
o.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

Climate change, https://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...fire-hurricane

Stolen election: still waiting on evidence of it being stolen (but "we have theories"). Info on the lawsuit, https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politi...-the-end-of-it

Debate: it happened. There are opinions about who won. Whoever won or lost the debate, the election matters more.

interesting you cite a Christian Science Monitor article as your proof .. an article that includes "it's complicated" in the article title.


and then there is this false statement ..


The answer is complicated. Scientists know that humans have made the world hotter, largely by burning fossil fuels like gas and oil. They also agree that more heat – aka energy – in the atmosphere can lead to a host of increasingly intense, and less predictable, weather events.


in the last 100 years at best the average temperature has risen 1 degree. in 100 years.


next thing you'll probably show as "proof" is Obama FALSELY claiming 97% of all scientists believe in man made climate change.


please don't. it's been debunked years ago as bullshit.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

interesting you cite a Christian Science Monitor article as your proof .. an article that includes "it's complicated" in the article title.

and then there is this false statement ..

The answer is complicated. Scientists know that humans have made the world hotter, largely by burning fossil fuels like gas and oil. They also agree that more heat – aka energy – in the atmosphere can lead to a host of increasingly intense, and less predictable, weather events.

in the last 100 years at best the average temperature has risen 1 degree. in 100 years.

next thing you'll probably show as "proof" is Obama FALSELY claiming 97% of all scientists believe in man made climate change.

please don't. it's been debunked years ago as bullshit.

No proof given on your part.

CSM is rated well https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/chris...ience-monitor/ ,
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart , and climate change is complicated.

More reading material, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

This link has sources to that 97% figure, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-cha...limate-change/ Feel free to share the debunking links.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by cc314

No proof given on your part.

CSM is rated well https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/chris...ience-monitor/ ,
https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-chart , and climate change is complicated.

More reading material, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change

This link has sources to that 97% figure, https://science.nasa.gov/climate-cha...limate-change/ Feel free to share the debunking links.

lol you took the 97% bait. NASA is full of shit and getting a shitton of GOV tax dollars to push this agenda. do you really think they are going to say anything else?


Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenerg...limate-change/


University of Houston Energy FellowsContributor

University of Houston Energy Fellows


The claim that there is a 97% consensus among scientists that humans are the cause of global warming is widely made in climate change literature and by political figures. It has been heavily publicized, often in the form of pie charts, as illustrated by this figure from the Consensus Project.



(Graph by The Consensus Project)


The 97% figure has been disputed and vigorously defended, with emotional arguments and counterarguments published in a number of papers. Although the degree of consensus is only one of several arguments for anthropogenic climate change – the statements of professional societies and evidence presented in reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are others – there is data to suggest that support is lower. In this post, I attempt to determine whether the 97% consensus is fact or fiction.


The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. Both papers were based on analyses of earlier publications. Other analyses and surveys arrive at different, often lower, numbers depending in part on how support for the concept was defined and on the population surveyed.

This public discussion was started by Oreskes’ brief 2004 article, which included an analysis of 928 papers containing the keywords “global climate change.” The article says “none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position” of anthropogenic global warming. Although this article makes no claim to a specific number, it is routinely described as indicating 100% agreement and used as support for the 97% figure.


In a 2007 book chapter, Oreskes infers that the lack of expressed dissent “demonstrates that any remaining professional dissent is now exceedingly minor.” The chapter revealed that there were about 235 papers in the 2004 article, or 25%, that endorsed the position. An additional 50% were interpreted to have implicitly endorsed, primarily on the basis that they discussed evaluation of impacts. Authors addressing impacts might believe that the Earth is warming without believing it is anthropogenic. In the article, Oreskes said some authors she counted "might believe that current climate change is natural." It is impossible to tell from this analysis how many actually believed it. On that basis, I find that this study does not support the 97% number.


The most influential and most debated article was the 2013 paper by Cook, et al., which popularized the 97% figure. The authors used methodology similar to Oreskes but based their analysis on abstracts rather than full content. I do not intend to reopen the debate over this paper. Instead, let’s consider it along with some of the numerous other surveys available.


Reviews of published surveys were published in 2016 by Cook and his collaborators and by Richard S. J. Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex. The 2016 Cook paper, which reviews 14 published analyses and includes among its authors Oreskes and several authors of the papers shown in the chart below, concludes that the scientific consensus “is robust, with a range of 90%–100% depending on the exact question, timing and sampling methodology.” The chart shows the post-2000 opinions summarized in Table 1 of the paper. Dates given are those of the survey, not the publication date. I’ve added a 2016 survey of meteorologists from George Mason University and omitted the Oreskes article.


The classification of publishing and non-publishing is that used by Cook and his collaborators. These categories are intended to be measures of how active the scientists in the sample analyzed have been in writing peer-reviewed articles on climate change. Because of different methodology, that information is not available in all of the surveys. The categorization should be considered an approximation. The chart shows that over half the surveys in the publishing category and all the surveys in the non-publishing category are below 97%.


(Graph by IOPScience)


Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.


Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.


In the strict sense, the 97% consensus is false, even when limited to climate scientists. The 2016 Cook review found the consensus to be “shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists.” One survey found it to be 84%. Continuing to claim 97% support is deceptive. I find the 97% consensus of climate scientists to be overstated.


An important consideration in this discussion is that we are attempting to define a single number to represent a range of opinions which have many nuances. To begin with, as Oreskes says, “often it is challenging to determine exactly what the authors of the paper[s] do think about global climate change.” In addition, published surveys vary in methodology. They do not ask the same questions in the same format, are collected by different sampling methods, and are rated by different individuals who may have biases. These issues are much discussed in the literature on climate change, including in the articles discussed here.


The range of opinions and the many factors affecting belief in anthropogenic climate change cannot be covered here. The variety of opinion can be illustrated by one graph from the 2013 repeat of the Bray and von Storch survey showing the degree of belief that recent or future climate change is due to or will be caused by human activity. A value of 1 indicates not convinced and a value of 7 is very much convinced. The top three values add to 81%, roughly in the range of several other surveys.


A survey of the perceptions of climate scientists 2013 (Graph by Dennis Bray & Hans von Storch)


Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”


Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry. They are frequently described as a “tiny minority.” It’s not as easy to discount dissenters if the number is 10 or 15 percent.


The conclusions of the IPCC are the other most often cited support for anthropogenic climate change. These conclusions are consensus results of a committee with thousands of contributors. Although this is often viewed as a monolithic conclusion, the nature of committee processes makes it virtually certain that there are varying degrees of agreement, similar to what was shown in the Bray and von Storch survey. The Union of Concerned Scientists says of the IPCC process “it would be clearly unrealistic to aim for unanimous agreement on every aspect of the report.” Perhaps this is a subject for another day.


Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil and subsequently worked in a variety of management and technical positions with several independent exploration and production companies. Ritchie retired as Vice President and General Manager of the offshore division of EOG Resources in 2007. Prior to his experience in the oil industry, he served at the US Air Force Special Weapons Center, providing geologic and geophysical support to nuclear research activities.

[cc314]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

lol you took the 97% bait. NASA is full of shit and getting a shitton of GOV tax dollars to push this agenda. do you really think they are going to say anything else?

Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%. Most studies including specialties other than climatologists find support in the range of 80% to 90%. The 97% consensus of scientists, when used without limitation to climate scientists, is false.

So, you can cut it down to 80-90 (not zero) by including non-climate scientists. I hope that doesn't include the Dr. Navarros of the world. At one point he mentions non-published articles. Published articles can be crap. Non-published have a higher chance of being crap.

Despite the difficulty in defining a precise number and the opinion that the exact number is not important, 97% continues to be widely publicized and defended. One might ask why 97% is important. Perhaps it’s because 97% has marketing value. It sounds precise and says that only 3% disagree. By implication, that small number who disagree must be out of the mainstream: cranks, chronic naysayers, or shills of the fossil fuel industry. They are frequently described as a “tiny minority.” It’s not as easy to discount dissenters if the number is 10 or 15 percent.

Not as easy to discount (also not that hard), but shouldn't take most people to "there isn't prove otherwise." It's almost as if....it's complicated.

Earl J. Ritchie is a retired energy executive and teaches a course on the oil and gas industry at the University of Houston. He has 35 years’ experience in the industry. He started as a geophysicist with Mobil Oil and subsequently worked in a variety of management and technical positions with several independent exploration and production companies. Ritchie retired as Vice President and General Manager of the offshore division of EOG Resources in 2007. Prior to his experience in the oil industry, he served at the US Air Force Special Weapons Center, providing geologic and geophysical support to nuclear research activities.

Did you think an oil and gas executive would say anything else? Looks like he's in the 3% (or the 3-20%, lol). The "debunking" doesn't get us to zero. Dude is basically saying, "It's not 97%!"

NASA site cites more than once source from 2004-2022. Wikipedia is not a government site, and they cite surveys from the 1970 through the 2020s. And, back to CSM -- it's complicated.

Be best.

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by Texxan52

I'm just curious if Fox entertainment fans (their own lawyers say they are not a news channel) are embarrassed to have repeated what they heard on Fox entertainment such as:
1.There is no such thing as climate change.
2. Take invermectine for Covid.
3. Take Bleach for Covid.
4. The 2020 election was stolen...they paid a billion dollars for that lie.
5. Cutting capital gains tax will stimulate the economy. All it does is allow trust fund babies like Tramp an George Bush to pay lower tax on their income than people that work for a living.
6. Corporations don't pay tax people pay tax. See 5 above.
7. reagan's trickle down economics is a valid plan. Hasn't happened yet.
8. Republicans want a balanced budget. Before Tramp the largest % increase in the national debt was Regan. As far as Deb, Tramp and the Republican congressman were in a league if his own.
9. Republican Presidents are good for Business. Just look at stock market prices in the last 60 years in republican versus democratic presidents.
10. Vice President Harris is afraid to debate Tramp. Who won?
11. Vice President Harris is afraid to do interviews. Very funny.
Just curious, are you embarrassed you were conned by Fox entertainment or to embarrassed to admit it!
o.

All lies or misinformation



The biggest problem in Washington DC is they use Baseline budgeting so there is no way to accurately track the fake " cuts " in spending that only reduce the rate of the increase in spending.


They also use static scoring for tax rate changes which are totally worthless.


The Democrats want to tax lower and middle income voters but hide it by raising corporation taxes, which just increases the costs of goods and services people buy.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

The Democrats want to tax lower and middle income voters but hide it by raising corporation taxes, which just increases the costs of goods and services people buy.

Trump did the same thing with tariffs.

Biden left them in place. And why wouldn’t he? You have to feed the Beast.

[r66]

and the Dems also want to tax unrealized capital gains. That will be a shit show as how are they going to define points in time to determine said value, will they allow tax deduction for unrealized capital losses, etc?


And as to spending/impact on national debt, from 2010 until about 2020, the quarterly interest payment for the national debt was roughly 450 billion on average. Currently, the interest payment, under Biden, has hockey sticked to a little over 1 trillion per quarter...so doubled...



https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

[farmstud60]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Trump did the same thing with tariffs.

Biden left them in place. And why wouldn’t he? You have to feed the Beast.

Tariffs is more of a complex animal. Part of the reason for tariffs is too many regulations most often by Democrats increasing costs thus companies are less competitive on the world market.


But obvious from discussions here that only about 25% of the people actually understand taxes and economics.