In reply to oldsaw:
On an unrelated note, is that your cat in the picture and how much does it weigh?
In reply to oldsaw:
On an unrelated note, is that your cat in the picture and how much does it weigh?
You guys seem to be missing that political fact checking is not a scientific study or statistical analysis. There is no method to political fact checking.
The starting point for a fact check is a wild sounding statement, which gives someone the desire to check the validity.
So, if I say, "George Washington was the first President of the US", "The US was formed in 1776", and "I dodged sniper fire today at the grocery store, but killed the sniper with a frozen asparagus", it's pretty likely you will only fact-check one of my statements.
That would give me a 100% pants-on-fire lier rating.
But 100% of my statements were not lies. You never checked the other 2, because there was no reason to.
My actually lie percentage is only 33%, not 100%.
Completely impossible to measure accurately.
If my statements were political, and you have a particular political viewpoint, you are going to be more suspicious of certain statements than others. If you already agree with my statement, you won't check me at all, even if it is a bold faced lie.
When a large percentage of the media has a bias that favors a particular candidate's positions, they will automatically get a pass on the fact checking.
And a skilled presentation (like the previous Clinton example about small donors), can totally destroy any possibility of balance.
Political fact checking is completely different than statistical analysis. At it's core, it is driven by opinion and bias, not fact and measurement (even when the fact checking is completely accurate).
A fact check is supposed to do just that- check a fact. It does not represent a balanced data point inside an analysis.
I'd say Snopes is pretty good about breaking down parts of claims and determining just how much of a claim is BS or fact.
snopes is very good about breaking it all down
In reply to mad_machine:
That they are, theyre usually good enough to disprove about every sensationalist claim on social media. LoL
Flight Service wrote: In reply to oldsaw: On an unrelated note, is that your cat in the picture and how much does it weigh?
That was my cat until 9 (or so) years ago. The vet weighed him at 32lbs about a year before we lost him.
That was his most common pose because he loved belly rubs more than food and he obviously got his share of both. It got to the point where a good look would get him purring and flopping on to his back.
SVreX wrote: ....A fact check is supposed to do just that- check a fact. It does not represent a balanced data point inside an analysis.
Good point and I totally agree, counting the number of "checks" can be a wildly misrepresentative measure. Heck, the fact that there has been a bit of a race to get press coverage via controversial statements makes it even worse.
Still, it is nice that there at least is place the people can have some confidence in checking what politicians say. But, as with most things, it's best to be a least a bit suspicious.. From what I have seen on the site though, the analysis seems to be pretty good.
Global warming, and the lack of action to combat it and the denial of the science behind it, has me deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States
SVreX wrote: A fact check is supposed to do just that- check a fact. It does not represent a balanced data point inside an analysis.
Bingo. They do clearly state that OUT OF THE FACTS CHECKED.
Sometime people assume too much.
I have clicked here a few times, and have a thoughtful post in my head, and every time I go to type it, I reread a few pages and say "well, never mind, the problems are here, too".
In reply to SVreX:
All three statements could be challenged , John Hanson could be argued as first us president, the declaration of Indy was 1776, but the government itself wasn't formed intil a few years later. The asparagus story, maybe that was the real one 
All the back and forth about the meaning of words used by politicians 
It's good to always remember the saying: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."
A semi-skilled statistician can make any batch of numbers sound like virtually anything they want all depending on how they want it "spun".
fritzsch wrote: Global warming, and the lack of action to combat it and the denial of the science behind it, has me deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States
has me in doubt of the existence of the world.
I live only about 15 feet above mean high tide, Where I work is about the same.. any serious rise in the ocean's height would have serious consequences for people who live and work along the coast and on the ocean. The rest of the world knows there is an issue and the cliff we are racing towards and rapidly approaching, how come we can't do anything?
In reply to mad_machine:
politics
fritzsch wrote: Climate Change, and the lack of action to combat it and the denial of the science behind it, has me deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States
FTFY.....The world has been historically both warmer & colder, the true test will be if the human race can continue to adapt to the changes. We won't know until we get there, so just do your part and hang around for the ride.
WOW Really Paul? wrote:fritzsch wrote: Climate Change, and the lack of action to combat it and the denial of the science behind it, has me deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United StatesFTFY.....The world has been historically both warmer & colder, the true test will be if the human race can continue to adapt to the changes. We won't know until we get there, so just do your part and hang around for the ride.
Call it whatever you want, the important part is that folks are completely ignoring science and the data behind it. The Earth will survive. We won't.
In reply to mtn:
I fix that because typically everyone else bitches, pisses, and moans about it.
You nailed the point however, so long as we don't vaporize the entire planet, it will be around long after our insignificant species is extinct. We think too highly of ourselves sometimes.
KyAllroad wrote: A semi-skilled statistician can make any batch of numbers sound like virtually anything they want all depending on how they want it "spun".
Statistics don't lie..... Statisticians do.
fritzsch wrote: Global warming, and the lack of action to combat it and the denial of the science behind it, has me deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United States
I would be a lot more inclined to do something about it if all the proposed "solutions" didn't make some people rich off the backs of others. What has been proposed as solutions will only drive up the price of everything and be especially burdensome on the poor, while giving money to dictators in third world countries to line their pockets. Oh, and don't forget making those with "approved" green companies billionaires while turning out almost no usable product.
Personally I would love for our country to have a real discussion about this, but the solutions thrown about will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem. Working in the energy industry, we get to see a lot of what is coming, and there will be far greater benefits from upcoming technology than from anything that is being proposed. Many of the companies getting all the govt. subsidies are jokes throughout the industry as all they do is suck in a lot of money while turning out nothing especially usable or relevant.
In reply to racerdave600:
That and their doomsday predictions.....they need to learn how to use percentage based forecasts(like meteorologists) instead of making stupid statements like Florida would be underwater by 2010. Stupid predictions obviously don't help with you, or your work, being taken seriously. 
WOW Really Paul? wrote:fritzsch wrote: Global Warming, and the lack of action to combat it and the denial of the science behind it, has me deeply in doubt of the future existence of the United StatesFTFY.....The world has been historically both warmer & colder, the true test will be if the human race can continue to adapt to the changes. We won't know until we get there, so just do your part and hang around for the ride.
What I said needed no correcting. Okay yes there will probably be another Ice Age in 100000 years, but right now, next 100, 200, 300 years. Global Warming
And based on scientific modeling, it is appropriate to say much of Florida, Bangladesh, Philipines, some of the most populated cities in China will be underwater in the next 100 years without drastic action. This isn't a 50% chance of rain, I don't think Ill bring an umbrella today.
Personally I'm more concerned about the CISPA rider that was passed in the House Omnibus in the short term. I guess we'll see if the system works or not shortly, or if we've actually given over to fear.
It'll chill free speech in no time if it becomes law.
it's not just that... entire ways of life will be completely lost. For a local view on that.. Look at the people who live on Tangier Island in the middle of the Chesapeake. They are descendants of the original settlers and have their own way of life. They even have their own dialect that is more "English" than anywhere else spoken around here. They only live about 5 feet above high tide and many times large parts of their island home are below the sea.
It's not just "over there" it's here too
In reply to racerdave600:
What I see being thrown about; ending oil subsidies, investing in green energy infrastructure, revamping our electrical grid to be more secure from attacks as well as handling intermittent shifting loads that can be typical of some renewable sources. Pretty good ideas.
People are getting rich regardless. Like 7 of the top ten richest companies in the world are oil and gas companies. Id rather have people get rich while not ruining our future. Right now people are getting rich not just off the backs of others, but also the backs of our future.
You said yourself that there will be great benefits from upcoming technology, we need to invest and fund that type of work. Pay for it with the oil subsidies. Maybe gas will go up, but well that is a reality.
fritzsch wrote:
And based on scientific modeling, it is appropriate to say much of Florida, Bangladesh, Philipines, some of the most populated cities in China will be underwater in the next 100 years without drastic action. This isn't a 50% chance of rain, I don't think Ill bring an umbrella today.
It's taken us almost 100 years to reach the point we are now. In my uneducated opinion, if we shut down all greenhouse emissions tomorrow, it would likely take almost 100 years to get back to were we started. Like I said it's my uneducated opinion. I am curious as to what drastic actions you are speaking of.
You'll need to log in to post.
