JERSEY CITY LIST - Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions [NOT Jersey City]

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#114

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 727

Quote:

JCMan8
Boris, is it not a fact that the polar ice caps are melting, and the arctic ice levels continue to lower?

Nope. Allow me to explain.

First of all you want to change terminology. We talked about "facts" as in "how good our theories are", you want to talk about "facts" as in "this is one data point".

Second, there is no such thing as "continue". Ice melts and ice grows, it's a process with different trends, and fluctuations, and on many different scales. There are changes from day to day, there are changes due to seasons, there are changes due to shifts in the underwater seismic activities like underwater volcanos, there are changes like ice ages and so on. Without precise qualifications - what is the scale of the trend that you have in mind, what areas we are talking about, and how do we know what factors affect those changes, those "facts" are entirely meaningless.

Without specifying all that you would have to claim that "this was the snowiest season in Boston" means that there is a fact that points toward "Global Cooling". No, there isn't.

Quote:

JCMan8
Isn't it another fact that right now, the arctic sea ice has reached its lowest level on record?

Of course not. I am surprised you asked. Do you not know it's the end of winter? It's the end of the long few months with temperatures below feeezing in the Arctics, how can it possibly be the lowest?

What you wanted to say "it's reached it's annual maximum, and this maximum is lower than the other ones we have measured".

If you want to see the more complex picture of the sea ice in Arctic, you can take a look at graphs here. It should be pretty clear that this "oh, it's the lowest maximum" is just an attempt to cherry-pick one data point. And that just if we look only at Arctic data, and forget that the ice in Antarctic shows entirely different pattern. Cherry-picking data, pointing at only those ones that follow your preset target is not science. It's the opposite of science.

Posted on: 2015/3/29 2:19

JCMan8

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#113

Home away from home

Joined:
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02

From JC

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 3071

Boris, is it not a fact that the polar ice caps are melting, and the arctic ice levels continue to lower?

Isn't it another fact that right now, the arctic sea ice has reached its lowest level on record?

www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Posted on: 2015/3/28 17:57

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#112

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 727

Quote:

CatDog wrote:
So your entire argument against the existence of climate change boils down to "I don't like you so I'm not going to believe it."

Nope.

Just in case, if you want to know what my entire argument is, the only true way to find out is to actually read my entire argument. Instead of trying to guess by looking at a couple of words in the last sentence.

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
The idea that you don?t ?believe? in facts simply means I can discount what you say.

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding condescending, nor do I have time to ponder this, so here it goes: you don't have "facts". This is just that simple. You have "theories", "models".

If you want facts, here is one: none of those models was validated by an experiment. In fact, they failed it.

If you predict that a boat is going to swim and the boat sinks it means your model of hydrodynamics is bad. You can try claiming it doesn?t matter. You can berate your opponents for not believing in "facts". You can claim that you do some "projects" and that means you are an expert. All that means nothing. All that matters in science is a test. An experiment. Nothing else.

Now, as I said before even though global warming models proved to be wrong, there was one nice thing about them. They were testable. They predicted something specific and we could check if that prediction comes true. The "climate change" doesn't predict anything. It can't be tested. It's no longer science.

But that's only half of the problem. Another one is that Democrats managed to make this issue political. You shamed the opponents, tried to stomp any dissent and heresy, declared the issue closed and all that. This means you no longer can say "oh, we just trusted the scientists". You own this lysenkoism.

P.S. Here is some interesting reading. Well, for someone scientifically minded, anyway.
* Theory on the Pause ? climate science has ?exhausted adjustment rationales?
* How Temperature Adjustments Have Transformed Arctic Climate History
* The BEST adjustments of temperature
* One chart suggests there?s a ?pHraud? in omitting Ocean Acidification data in Congressional testimony

Posted on: 2015/3/28 16:59

hero69

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#111

Home away from home

Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
2023/1/30 21:43

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 3792

christie says $225 million exxon settlement is good. is he that dumb?

http://news.yahoo.com/christie-calls- ... d-174950822--finance.html

Posted on: 2015/3/11 19:08

CatDog

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#110

Home away from home

Joined:
2010/11/17 1:11
Last Login :
1/7 4:19

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1241

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:
Pebble wrote:
Fun example: Climate Change. The only ?scientists? arguing against this are bought and paid for by oil executives. All independent study has this down to measurable levels. Heck, projects I worked on were all about figuring out the actual speed to which the planet is degrading and what, if anything, could slow or cease what seems to be the inevitable.

This is fun example indeed. Let me show you how your argument that you consider "neutral", is in fact a 100% liberal party line.

First, you use the words "climate change" instead of "warming". The difference is "warming" theory did make predictions. "Change" theory doesn't. Whatever happens, snow or no snow, rain or drought, high temperatures or low, - any event is perfectly ok with the "change" theory. Changing the name from "warming" to "change" was an admission that the climatologists don't have a viable model to predict anything (Imagine someone selling a theory of bouyancy that can't predict if the boat would swim or sink.)

Second, you believe that a strength of a scientific argument can be argued purely with an ad hominem on where the funding came from.

Third, you mentioned that you worked on the projects that were trying to figure out the speed at which the planet is "degrading", well, where are the results? Have you tested them? There were great many models that predicted a great deal of warming and during the last 18 years those models were tested and proven to be wrong.

You simply don't have any tested climate model right now, and yet you argue that only Republicans can doubt that "science".

So your entire argument against the existence of climate change boils down to "I don't like you so I'm not going to believe it."

Seems to be standard for Republicans these days. There's zero reason to deny climate change is happening beyond "liberals think it's true, therefore I don't." Hell, Rick Scott ordered the Florida DEP to not even use the words "climate change" or "global warming" or even acknowledge its existence or effects. Maybe if we stick our heads in the sand it will stop happening!

Posted on: 2015/3/11 16:56

hero69

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#109

Home away from home

Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
2023/1/30 21:43

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 3792

even christie's supreme court appointees voted against christie on affordable housing. i guess not all republicans have drunken the punch.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... art_most-commented_hudson

Posted on: 2015/3/11 13:07

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#108

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/2/6 0:52
Last Login :
2016/10/13 23:34

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 284

Quote:

hero69 wrote: he sort of reminds me of carly fiorina

lol, good one. Christie and Fiorina, legends in their own minds.

Posted on: 2015/3/8 1:12

hero69

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#107

Home away from home

Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
2023/1/30 21:43

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 3792

Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Since 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill to raise the minimum wage and cut $1.6 billion from schools, all while handing out $4 billion in tax cuts to major corporations--four times more than the previous decade. New Jersey?s job growth is now worse than every state but Alaska and is one of just three states that saw more people falling into poverty than rising above it. The corporate media refuses to report on Christie's disastrous economic record. smdh

imo, everything about christie smells of d-baggery. this guy has done absolutely nothing for nj except hold it back. what can he brag about? he sort of reminds me of carly fiorina - all talk, but no action/success!

Posted on: 2015/3/7 15:37

user1111

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#106

Home away from home

Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21
Last Login :
2019/12/26 15:30

From GV Bayside Park

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 5356

Since 2010, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill to raise the minimum wage and cut $1.6 billion from schools, all while handing out $4 billion in tax cuts to major corporations--four times more than the previous decade. New Jersey?s job growth is now worse than every state but Alaska and is one of just three states that saw more people falling into poverty than rising above it. The corporate media refuses to report on Christie's disastrous economic record. smdh

Posted on: 2015/3/7 13:58

http://googleitbitch.com/

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#105

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/2/6 0:52
Last Login :
2016/10/13 23:34

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 284

Christie's horrendous stretch gets worse

http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2 ... worse_moran.html#comments

Posted on: 2015/3/5 17:19

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#104

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/2/6 0:52
Last Login :
2016/10/13 23:34

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 284

National Review to hit Christie on N.J. record

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2 ... -on-nj-record-203497.html

Resized Image

Posted on: 2015/3/5 17:15

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#103

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

Rorschach wrote:
FREE-FALLING: Gov. Chris Christie?s approval ratings in N.J. at lowest point ever

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit ... t-point-article-1.2135752

It's all that evil NY Times' fault :)

The downside is we?ll be stuck with him not being on the campaign trail. This will likely lead to him doing more damage to the state?

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:
Pebble wrote:
Fun example: Climate Change. The only ?scientists? arguing against this are bought and paid for by oil executives. All independent study has this down to measurable levels. Heck, projects I worked on were all about figuring out the actual speed to which the planet is degrading and what, if anything, could slow or cease what seems to be the inevitable.

This is fun example indeed. Let me show you how your argument that you consider "neutral", is in fact a 100% liberal party line.

First, you use the words "climate change" instead of "warming". The difference is "warming" theory did make predictions. "Change" theory doesn't. Whatever happens, snow or no snow, rain or drought, high temperatures or low, - any event is perfectly ok with the "change" theory. Changing the name from "warming" to "change" was an admission that the climatologists don't have a viable model to predict anything (Imagine someone selling a theory of bouyancy that can't predict if the boat would swim or sink.)

Second, you believe that a strength of a scientific argument can be argued purely with an ad hominem on where the funding came from.

Third, you mentioned that you worked on the projects that were trying to figure out the speed at which the planet is "degrading", well, where are the results? Have you tested them? There were great many models that predicted a great deal of warming and during the last 18 years those models were tested and proven to be wrong.

You simply don't have any tested climate model right now, and yet you argue that only Republicans can doubt that "science".

And just like that you show why I don?t read anything you write with any seriousness. There are a lot of people working on a lot of projects, including myself at one point. The idea that you don?t ?believe? in facts simply means I can discount what you say. Thanks for the laugh though!

Posted on: 2015/3/4 13:22

Dos A Cero

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#102

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 727

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Fun example: Climate Change. The only ?scientists? arguing against this are bought and paid for by oil executives. All independent study has this down to measurable levels. Heck, projects I worked on were all about figuring out the actual speed to which the planet is degrading and what, if anything, could slow or cease what seems to be the inevitable.

This is fun example indeed. Let me show you how your argument that you consider "neutral", is in fact a 100% liberal party line.

First, you use the words "climate change" instead of "warming". The difference is "warming" theory did make predictions. "Change" theory doesn't. Whatever happens, snow or no snow, rain or drought, high temperatures or low, - any event is perfectly ok with the "change" theory. Changing the name from "warming" to "change" was an admission that the climatologists don't have a viable model to predict anything (Imagine someone selling a theory of bouyancy that can't predict if the boat would swim or sink.)

Second, you believe that a strength of a scientific argument can be argued purely with an ad hominem on where the funding came from.

Third, you mentioned that you worked on the projects that were trying to figure out the speed at which the planet is "degrading", well, where are the results? Have you tested them? There were great many models that predicted a great deal of warming and during the last 18 years those models were tested and proven to be wrong.

You simply don't have any tested climate model right now, and yet you argue that only Republicans can doubt that "science".

Posted on: 2015/3/4 5:26

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#101

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/2/6 0:52
Last Login :
2016/10/13 23:34

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 284

FREE-FALLING: Gov. Chris Christie?s approval ratings in N.J. at lowest point ever

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/polit ... t-point-article-1.2135752

It's all that evil NY Times' fault :)

Posted on: 2015/3/4 3:02

drifterx

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#100

Home away from home

Joined:
2010/9/5 2:25
Last Login :
2022/2/1 5:25

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 350

I fail to see what any of this has relevance to the sinking ship that is the Chris Christie presidential ambition. Giuliani was blasted by both the left and right for being a dumbass attention whore.... oh wait, I'm starting to see it now.

Posted on: 2015/3/2 16:02

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#99

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Ah, she did play it? I tried to find it on the MSNBC, but the only thing I could find is this video, where Rachel Maddow builds and attacks a strawman, pretending that if Giuliani favorably mentions Putin's decisiveness, it's somehow the same as "Giuliani wants dictatorship". You chose quite a person to demonstrate media's lack of liberal bias.

Um, ok. I download Maddow?s Podcast and listen to it while walking the dog when my soccer podcasts run out. She is absolutely biased towards a liberal point of view. Where did I say she wasn?t? I was merely pointing out that one of the most liberal shows out there even quoted Obama on Bush which negates the idea that it wasn?t mentioned.

Besides, why would Obama?s comment need to be mentioned? Giuliani?s mention was a broad generalization. The two are similar but not the same.

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Back to the subject at hand, since among us two you are an MSNBC expert, when Rachel Maddow played that video of Obama calling Bush "unpatriotic", how did she characterize it?

I fail to see how I?m an ?expert? on a television station that I don?t watch, but ok...

She didn?t characterize Obama?s comment as anything. She pointed out that Obama said something similar during W?s term and played the quote. My impression was that she wasn?t thrilled with Obama?s comment and that he doesn?t have much to gripe about regarding the topic. She then moved on to a different subject matter.

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Did she use some of the phrases that MSNBC deployed to describe Giuliani's statement? For example, did she call Obama's speech "one of the ugliest smears"? Did she at least call it "inflammatory remarks"?

What does Rachel Maddow have to do with Sharpton? Should she have to answer for him?

Michele Bachmann is one of the least educated public officials on the planet. Should every Republican have to answer for her after she claimed that ?The Lion King was gay propaganda? in 2004? In 2008, she claimed that Carbon Dioxide is ?harmless.?

I don?t care one bit about Sharpton. I have no idea why he was brought up. What is your point other than to add another piece of absurdity to this already absurd argument that you are making.

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Anyways, I gave you links to an academic research, done with some well-specified metrics, not flimsy hand-waving, and the results are pretty clear. So, there it is.

You cite conservative sources that make claims. First they determine what they believe to be a ?left? issue and then they bemoan whether or not the news articles are biased.

Fun example: Climate Change. The only ?scientists? arguing against this are bought and paid for by oil executives. All independent study has this down to measurable levels. Heck, projects I worked on were all about figuring out the actual speed to which the planet is degrading and what, if anything, could slow or cease what seems to be the inevitable. However, since there are bunch of moronic Republicans that decide that this is an issue to stand against, articles citing the independent studies proving out climate change fall into the ?liberal? category.

Fun example 2: Union Negotiations. Currently, MLS is going through their collective bargaining agreement. The union wants free agency while the owners do not. The league has a gag order on owners and therefore they are not providing quotes for news agencies. A journalist may get a player, a member of the union, on the record and write their article. This article is then deemed ?liberal? by your BS study because the only source is the Union. It doesn?t matter that the owners didn?t offer an opinion or a quote, it only matters that the only sources for the article are union members.

Posted on: 2015/3/2 15:53

Dos A Cero

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#98

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 727

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebs, honey, the reason you don't see the bias-is because you agree with them. You can attribute the success of cable TV news to people wanting to hear something beyond partisan news on the broadcast channels. And the response on cable by the likes of MSNBC has failed, although some of the shows are highly amusing!

Just because it is said out-loud or written on a message board doesn't make it real. I suggest looking for the existence of unicorns as proof of this.

You've also proven my point. I have provided specific documented proof of where various news media outlets were complicit in pushing several right wing agendas. The reverse of this has never been demonstrated.

Sure.

A Measure of Media Bias
Media bias is real, finds UCLA political scientist

By the way, it's not a study, just "anecdotic evidence", but it's a fresh one, so - have you noticed just recently when the media was blasting Giuliani for questioning Obama's patriotism, how they in the most evenhanded way remembered how Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" few years ago? Yeah. Me neither.

You don't remember? Hell, even Rachel Maddow played the clip of Obama calling Bush unpatriotic.

This argument, like all of your others, are complete and utter crap.

Ah, she did play it? I tried to find it on the MSNBC, but the only thing I could find is this video, where Rachel Maddow builds and attacks a strawman, pretending that if Giuliani favorably mentions Putin's decisiveness, it's somehow the same as "Giuliani wants dictatorship". You chose quite a person to demonstrate media's lack of liberal bias.

Back to the subject at hand, since among us two you are an MSNBC expert, when Rachel Maddow played that video of Obama calling Bush "unpatriotic", how did she characterize it?

Did she use some of the phrases that MSNBC deployed to describe Giuliani's statement? For example, did she call Obama's speech "one of the ugliest smears"? Did she at least call it "inflammatory remarks"?

Anyways, I gave you links to an academic research, done with some well-specified metrics, not flimsy hand-waving, and the results are pretty clear. So, there it is.

Posted on: 2015/3/2 15:17

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#97

Home away from home

Joined:
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
2023/9/5 18:27

From Bergen Hill

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 1980

Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebs, honey, the reason you don't see the bias-is because you agree with them. You can attribute the success of cable TV news to people wanting to hear something beyond partisan news on the broadcast channels. And the response on cable by the likes of MSNBC has failed, although some of the shows are highly amusing!

Just because it is said out-loud or written on a message board doesn't make it real. I suggest looking for the existence of unicorns as proof of this.

You've also proven my point. I have provided specific documented proof of where various news media outlets were complicit in pushing several right wing agendas. The reverse of this has never been demonstrated.

Sure.

A Measure of Media Bias
Media bias is real, finds UCLA political scientist

By the way, it's not a study, just "anecdotic evidence", but it's a fresh one, so - have you noticed just recently when the media was blasting Giuliani for questioning Obama's patriotism, how they in the most evenhanded way remembered how Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" few years ago? Yeah. Me neither.

You don't remember? Hell, even Rachel Maddow played the clip of Obama calling Bush unpatriotic.

This argument, like all of your others, are complete and utter crap.

Posted on: 2015/3/2 14:51

Dos A Cero

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#96

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/5/29 3:09
Last Login :
2019/10/31 13:04

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 727

Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Pebs, honey, the reason you don't see the bias-is because you agree with them. You can attribute the success of cable TV news to people wanting to hear something beyond partisan news on the broadcast channels. And the response on cable by the likes of MSNBC has failed, although some of the shows are highly amusing!

Just because it is said out-loud or written on a message board doesn't make it real. I suggest looking for the existence of unicorns as proof of this.

You've also proven my point. I have provided specific documented proof of where various news media outlets were complicit in pushing several right wing agendas. The reverse of this has never been demonstrated.

Sure.

A Measure of Media Bias
Media bias is real, finds UCLA political scientist

By the way, it's not a study, just "anecdotic evidence", but it's a fresh one, so - have you noticed just recently when the media was blasting Giuliani for questioning Obama's patriotism, how they in the most evenhanded way remembered how Obama called Bush "unpatriotic" few years ago? Yeah. Me neither.

Posted on: 2015/3/2 0:14

Re: Christie bars NJ media cuz he's got POTUS ambitions

#95

Home away from home

Joined:
2011/2/6 0:52
Last Login :
2016/10/13 23:34

Group:
Registered Users

Posts: 284

WASHINGTON ? Gov. Chris Christie finished 10th in the annual Conservative Political Action Conference straw poll, finishing not only behind Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush but also business leaders Donald Trump and Carly Fiorina.

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/ ... s_in_cpac_straw_poll.html

That strategy of traveling the country and sucking up to the teabaggers seems to be going well :)

Posted on: 2015/3/1 1:06