SoylentNews

Winners and Losers of the Democratic Debate
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, Marooned Together on Fantasy Island

Oops, missed the previous one. I hear Marianne Williamson sold a few books with her performance.

In tonight's debate, we'll have Biden directly between Booker and Harris.

How to watch tonight's Democratic presidential debate on CNN

CNN's Democratic presidential debates will air exclusively on CNN and will stream live in their entirety, without requiring log-in to a cable provider, exclusively to CNN.com's homepage, across mobile devices via CNN's apps for iOS and Android, and via CNNgo apps for Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, Chromecast and Android TV.

---

de Blasio fires opening shots at Biden and Harris. Heckler in the audience.

Senator Michael Bennet (Colorado) loves America. Sad sack act. "Kids belong in classrooms, not cages. They deserve better than a bully in the White House."

Governor Jay Inslee (Washington). THE PEOPLE WATCHING AND IN THIS ROOM ARE THE LAST BEST HOPE FOR THE PLANET. One issue candidate: climate change and clean energy.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (New York). My grandmother/mother taught me nothing is impossible. And her mother worked with the gays. And she (Sen. G) was single handedly responsible for repealing DADT. "BEATING DONALD TRUMP... DEFINITELY NOT IMPOSSIBLE."

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii). Patriots patriots patriots patriots. "Donald Trump is not behaving like a patriot... I'll fight for our rights and freedoms." Soldier's values.

Julian Castro. Invokes recent Puerto Rico protests. Good health care, education, job opportunities. Even in Detroit. Grew up with a single Mom in a poor neighborhood.

Andrew Yang. $1,000 a month. "I KNOW THIS MAY SOUND LIKE A GIMMICK." Why? Because automation. Auto workers in Detroit. Asks people to raise their hands if they've seen a store close. Invokes Amazon. The opposite of Donald Trump is an Asian man who likes math. Very enthusiastic supporter in the audience.

Cory Booker starts out with Trump's Baltimore attack. Commotion in the audience. He has to stop his opening statement so that security can escort somebody out. Other stuff. Heal as a nation.

Senator Kamala Harris (California). Microphones for several candidates sound crappy, feedback. Says something blandly inspirational. "Successfully prosecute the case of four more years of Donald Trump".

Biden. Restore the soul of the country. Mentions the diversity of the stage. Talks directly to "Mr. President".

Kamala Harris asked about her health care plan. "They're probably confused because they haven't read it." Generic stuff about co-pays, premiums. Option for a public or private plan. Access to health care must be a right. Biden says Harris has had several plans. Says plan will cost $3 trillion over 10 years. Harris responds. "Babies will be born into our plan!" Biden's plan will leave out 10 million Americans. Biden: Repeats $3 trillion cost estimate. Requires taxes to go up. Eliminates employer based insurance. Harris says the cost of doing nothing is too much, health care already costs $3-6 trillion a year.

de Blasio "doesn't know what they're talking about". Says tens of millions don't have insurance, and union members don't like their current insurance. Biden: build on Obamacare, provide a public option. Biden says his plan will cost $750 billion, not $30 trillion. Gillibrand brings up personal story about an allergic reaction to eggs. Forest, trees. Republicans gonna take away your health care. Harris says her plan is approved by the architect of Obamacare, Kathleen Sebelius. Biden: nothing is demanded in my plan, i.e. if you like your insurance you can keep it. Booker: Donald Trump is enjoying this debate while he plans to gut the ACA. RAISED BY TWO CIVIL RIGHTS PARENTS. Stand with the belief of health care as a human right. 20% of the economy to be spent on health care. We spend "multiple more than other countries". We're dividing each other over this issue. Gabbard: We have a "sick care system". Big insurance and pharma have been profiting off the backs of the sick, and have a seat at the table. Gabbard throws shade at Sebelius for working for an insurance company. Harris: Sebelius didn't write my plan, just endorsed it. Biden awkwardly brings up biopharma "it's not about chemicals anymore" (he was probably referring to biologics). Bennet wants a public option. My plan is different from Warren/Sanders/Harris/socialists! Agrees with Biden on the costs. Harris wants to respond, but it goes to Castro. Castro's granny had diabetes. Medicare should be expanded, keep private plans if you want, doesn't believe that profit motive should determine whether anybody gets health care. Harris: "With respect to my friend Bennet, my plan does not offer anything that is illegal". Bennet: MUH FRIEND. We need to be honest that Harris's plan bans employer based insurance and costs $30 trillion. Harris seems stumped, says Bennet is using Republican talking points. Misleading to suggest that employees want what their employers are offering _only_. Inslee: Washington first state to offer public option. Proud of his state yada yada. Brings up mental health care. Yang: TRUE STORY MY WIFE ASKED ME ABOUT HEALTH CARE WHEN I SAID I WAS RUNNING FOR PREZ. de Blasio: Democrats are fearmongering about universal health care. We don't need to be dependent on private insurance. Disrupt the status quo. de Blasio clarifies that Bennet is the one fearmongering. Bennet: This has nothing to do with Republican talking points. Sanders says that it will cost $32 trillion, not me. de Blasio: The American people get to decide (i.e. make the election a mandate on health care). Biden: Republicans are trying to kill Obamacare, which covered +20 million and 100 million for preexisting conditions. "bunch of malarkey". Bernie acknowledges $30 trillion must be paid. Harris: Let's talk about math. Pharma + insurance profited $72 billion last year. Biden's "status quo plan" does not hold these companies to task. Some stuff about insulin and Narcan. Biden wants to put insurance execs in jail over opioids. Gold plan, awkward cutoff.

Castro asked whether border is "open to all" if border crossings are decriminalized. Repeal Section 1325. Marshall Plan for South American countries. Bennet: Disagrees. Invokes his Holocaust Mom. Bill gave pathway to citizenship for 11 million, would do that again. Harris: Went to Homestead private detention facility in Florida, with 2,700 children. No entry. IMA TELL YOU WHAT I SAW. Children being walked into barracks. Bennet: We agree on family separation. Border turned into a symbol of nativist hostility. Gillibrand: Tries to humanize people fleeing violence, rape in South America. Make it a civil violation, not criminal. CNN to Biden: 800,000 immigrants were deported under Obama, more than under Trump. Biden gets heckled while answering. Asylum... flood the zone? Already proposed/passed $750 million for Guatemala. Keep it a crime. Castro: One of us has learned the lessons of the past, and one of us hasn't. My plan would also fix the broken LEGAL immigration system. It is a civil action. Biden: "I have guts enough to say his plan doesn't make sense." People should have to get in line. Defeat Donald Trump. Gabbard: "Our hearts break when we see these children at detention facilities." Make it easier to seek asylum. Yang: I'm a son of immigrants... we can't always be focused on distressed stories. Immigrants are being scapegoated for automation/robots. Booker: We are playing into Republican hands. Unlawful crossing is the same whether in civil or criminal courts, but criminal courts allow Trump to violate human rights. Doing it in the civil system means you don't need horrible detention facilities. Biden: I agree that asylum... is a real process. Increase number of legal immigrants allowed. We are able to cherry pick the best. It took curry? Inslee: We can no longer allow a white nationalist in the White House. Make America a place of refugee. First Governor to say "Send us your Syrian refugees." de Blasio: There's 11 million people here that have broken the law, but are a part of our communities now. Says Biden did not respond to whether he tried to stop deportations. Biden: "Dreamers" were Obama's idea. Comparing Obama to Trump is bizarre.

Gabbard: Does not believe tuition should be free for illegal ("undocumented") immigrants. Crushing student debt. de Blasio: I agree, but I don't hear an answer from the Vice President on deportations. Biden gives another half-assed answer. Booker: You can't just invoke Obama when it's convenient. Criticizes on Biden "cherry picking" immigrants. "Some are from shithole countries, some are from working countries." Biden: Obama went out of his way to change the system, got pushback. Gillibrand: 7 children died under Trump Admin's custody.

[commercial break]

Criminal justice. Biden: Booker's criminal justice plan is similar to mine. Rehab, not prison, for drug crimes. More education in prison. Eligibility for Pell grants, etc. when they get out. Booker: Race, poverty, mental health, addiction treated by locking people up, not lifting them up. Biden claimed responsibility for decades worth of failed laws. TRUE MARIJUANA JUSTICE. Biden grabs Booker, calls him a future President. Booker engaged in stop and frisk as Mayor of Newark. Booker inherited a bad city. Booker shocked that Biden wants to compare records. "Biden Crime Bill". Biden: We passed that bill (?). Nothing done with police dept. during his time as mayor. He hired Giuliani's guy. Booker: You're dipping into the Kool-Aid and don't even know the flavor. Come to Newark to see the results of our reforms. Biden's tough on crime bills have put people in prison for life.

Castro: Agrees with Booker. What Biden authored in '94 was a mistake, and he has flip flopped. Castro has put forward a police reform plan. Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, Eric Garner. National use of force standard. End of qualified immunity. Inslee: Come to the state of Washington and see what crim. justice reform looks like. Eliminated death penalty, "banned the box" so convicts can get a job. Police accountability and training in deescalation. Castro: Dept. of Justice didn't go after officer who killed Eric Garner. de Blasio: I know the Garner family, and they are going to get justice. In the next 30 days! There will never be another Eric Garner. Biden... what did you do about the Garner case for 2.5 years? Biden: (dodges) We reduced federal prison population, provided for body cameras. I find it fascinating that everyone thinks I'm terrible on these issues, but Obama chose me. Yang: I would trust anybody on this stage over Donald Trump on criminal justice. We should pay people to stay out of jail. Certainly after they come out, but also before they go in (everything comes back to UBI). Gillibrand: Officer who killed Eric Garner should be fired NAO! Illegal chokehold. If I was mayor, I would fire him. Would investigate as Prez. Harris asked about busing, audience mumbles. Harris: (my position not the same as Biden's) He worked with segregationists. Had they gotten their way, Booker and me wouldn't be here and Obama wouldn't have been President. Biden fails to acknowledge his past position. I too met with Eric Garner's mother. Civil rights division of DOJ said charges should have been filed, but it was overruled. Biden: When Senator Harris was Attorney General for 8 years, she presided over the 2 most segregated districts. And she presided over a police debt. that was abusing people's rights. Biden literally says to Google "1000 prisoners freed Kamala Harris" (SEO dream?). Gabbard: Deeply concerned about Harris's record. She laughed about being asked about smoking marijuana despite putting people in prison for it. Ignored evidence that could have exonerated a death row inmate. Etc. Harris: National model... fancy speeches. Reformed a system badly in need of reform. Legalize marijuana. Gabbard: Bottom line is that when you were in a position to help people, you did not. Actually blocked evidence that would have freed multiple death row inmates. Harris: My entire career, I have been opposed to the death penalty. Proud of my work as AG. I made an unpopular decision to not seek the death penalty.

Bennet: Prez racist, vote him out. This is the fourth debate, second time we debated busing 50 years ago despite schools still being segregated TODAY. Equal is not equal. You can draw a straight line from slavery to mass incarceration. 88% of prisoners dropped out of high school. Inslee: I approach this question with humility because I've never been a black teenager pulled over in a white neighborhood, LGBTQ slurred. Ended the school to prison pipeline in his state. Even if we get a majority in the Senate, nothing will get done, because we need to get rid of the filibuster. Yang: I spent 7 years running a nonprofit that created jobs, including in Detroit. Average African American median net worth will be $0 by 2053. Truck drivers gonna lose their jobs. MLK supported a guaranteed minimum income.

Castro asked about Baltimore tweets. "The President is a racist." Baltimore and other cities are rich in culture and possibilities. Invest in education, universal pre-K, tuition free university/job training. Desegregate thru HUD. Rent is going through the roof. Gillibrand: I don't believe it's the responsibility of Booker and Harris to be the only ones handling these issues. WHITE PRIVILEGE. Whiteness protects you from being shot.

Climate issue

Inslee's #1 priority is the climate. He knows the impact across the country happening now. Climate change is health, national security, and economy. Middle ground solutions like Biden's won't save us. My plan has been called the gold standard. Environmental justice. Nearby Detroit oil refinery (?) causing cancer. Biden: No middle ground with my plan. Immediate action. 15% of all the pollution in the country. Rejoin Paris climate accord. Yang: The important number is that U.S. is only 15% of global emissions. We are 10 years too late. We need to start moving our people to higher ground. Put economic resources in families' hands so they can move. Inslee: Biden's plan doesn't get us off coal and fossil fuels. Survival is realistic, and that's the plan we need. Biden: My plan calls for EV charging stations! $400 billion investment in tech. Double offshore wind. End coal/fossil subsidies. Engage the world while we are doing it. "We would work it out." Inslee: Our house is on fire, we need to get off coal within 10 years. Harris agrees with Inslee. Wind turbines cause jobs, not cancer. Carbon neutral by 2030. Gillibrand is a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal. How is it realistic? Gillibrand will clorox the Oval Office (hahahahahahhahaha). Will lead a worldwide conversation. Visited a family in Ohio that got flooded (severe weather being blamed on climate change). Invokes JFK Moon speech. Why not have a green energy race with China? Will put a price on carbon. Gabbard: This is personal. I grew up in Hawaii. Protecting our environment a way of life. I introduced most ambitious legislation in this area. Booker: I agree wholeheartedly with Inslee. Joined other mayors to speak out on Kyoto accords. Must deal with existential climate threat. U.S. must lead.

de Blasio's city came under fire for children testing positive for lead exposure. Decades old problem. Declared eradication of all lead. Lead exposure went down 90% since 2005. Remediation needed all over the country. Public housing. Going into all of them to eradicate lead. There should be a federal mandate. Castro: I went to Flint as Hud Secretary. Improved the blood lead standard. Plan to invest $50 billion to fight lead threat.

Are Biden's plans progressive enough to energize the party (and Michigan)? We did the stimulus package, bailed out General Motors. Helped Detroit to get out of bankruptcy. Gillibrand: I took a bus tour to talk about Trump's broken promises. Trade war w/ China, signed onto bad trade deals. Yang asked whether he can beat Trump. Yang says he's building a coalition of disaffected Democrats, conservatives, and libertarians. Record stock prices, suicides, depression. HAS AN AUTISTIC SON. Wife's work (as a stay-at-home mom) is not paid for. Gabbard: Donald Trump won because people feel like they have been left behind by politicians on both sides. I'm speaking the truth about ongoing Flint poisoning. We are spending $4 billion a month on Afghanistan. Booker: The truth will set us free. We lost Michigan because Republicans and Russians targeted the suppression of African American voters. We need an assault on the most valuable voting group: black women. Activate and engage to win Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Harris: Stuff about auto workers. Jerome Powell dropped interest rates. Trump betrayed the American people (because of trade war?).

[commercial break. lot of Ad Astra (2019)]

Stream cuts into some question for Castro. Trump claiming responsibility for Obama's ~80 months of job growth. Gabbard was against TPP. Would push for fair trade. TPP would have given away our sovereignty. Clear protections for environment needed in trade deals. Gabbard would not keep China tariffs. Would Biden rejoin TPP? He would renegotiate it. We have to join, or China writes the rules for the world. Invest in workers to make them more competitive. Biden would insist in renegotiation of TPP. de Blasio mentions NAFTA 2.0. de Blasio asks Biden if he will oppose the new NAFTA. Biden says "Yes." Biden: "I love your affection for me." Bennet asked about automation!! Yang must be salivating. Bennet: Income inequality has gotten worse due to tax cuts, Middle East wars. Invest in America again. (This is looking like a dodge, bring in Yang plz.) Yang asked about women pay gap. Harris wants to fine companies that don't close gender pay gaps. Yang: I have seen firsthand the inequities. We have to do more at every step. We need to think about women in every situation. We need to give them economic freedom BY GIVING THEM $1,000 A MONTH. Harris: (Internally laughs at Yang) Pay gap. Require corporations to post on their website if they are paying women equally. Fine 1% of previous year's profits. Gillibrand: We have to have a broader conversation. I want to address Biden directly. Wrote an op-ed that said that women who work outside the home result in the deterioration of the family. Biden: It was a long time ago, and it was about a tax break for child care. Give more tax breaks. Gillibrand: YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION. 4/10 moms have to work, 8/10 moms are working today. Biden: MY DECEASED WIFE WORKED WHILE RAISING MY CHILDREN. I WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED IN [legislation]. Biden shoots Gillibrand because she praised him previously. Gillibrand goofed. Harris: Biden opposed Hyde amendment. I PERSONALLY PROSECUTED RAPE AND CHILD MOLESTATION CASES. Biden: The Senator knows that's not my position. Everyone voted for the Hyde amendment in the past! I support a women's right to choose. As a Constitutional right. Congress should legislate. There was not full federal funding. Inslee: We need to think about how nearly all women have been underpaid.

Foreign policy

Booker asked about Afghanistan. Booker: I will not do foreign policy by tweet. I will bring troops home as quickly as possible, but won't set an artificial deadline during this campaign. Gabbard: THIS IS REAL. I served in Iraq. My cousin is deployed to Afghanistan right now. This is about leadership. I'll bring troops home within the first year because they shouldn't have been there in the first place. End wasteful regime change wars. Yang asked about Iran breaching nuclear deal. Yang would move to deescalate tensions. Renegotiate timelines. Signed a pledge to end Forever Wars. We have to spend money at home. Inslee: These are difficult matters. I voted against Iraq War. We need a President who can stand against the drums of war. Biden: I did make a bad judgment on Iraq War. I opposed surge in Afghanistan. Gabbard: We were all lied to. The current President is continuing to betray us. We have not gone after al Qaeda. Our President is supporting al Qaeda! de Blasio beat down for talking out of turn.

Harris asked about obstruction of justice. Harris: President needs to be held accountable. People have gone to prison for far less. Noone is above the law, including the POTUS. Booker: I've read the report... I've read the redacted versions of the Mueller report. Start impeachment proceedings immediately. We swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Congress should do its job. Castro agrees. I was the first to call for impeachment proceedings. Agree that President should not direct Attorney General to prosecute or not prosecute. de Blasio: Obvious that crimes have been committed, but cautions that Americans do not care about impeachment. Are we ready to make the wealthy pay their fair share. The best impeachment is to win in 2020. Bennet: We are 4 months away from the Iowa caucuses. Don't bother with impeachment since Trump will be acquitted by the Republican Senate. Or we'll give Trump a second term. Castro: We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Too many folks in the Senate are spooked by 1988. If we don't impeach Trump, Trump will just say "LOok they didn't go after me". Moscow Mitch. Bennet: I don't disagree. It's incredibly unusual for Congress to walk and chew gum at the same time.

[commercial break]

Closing statements

de Blasio: Trump pits working people against each other. This has to the party of labor unions, universal health care, and taxing the hell out of the wealthy. Trump will call us socialists. Donald, you're the real socialist... socialism for the rich. Go to taxthehell.com.

Bennet: We have been here before as a country. Trump doesn't appreciate history, rule of law, climate change, etc. Put the divisive politics of Donald Trump and the last 10 years behind us. Join me at michaelbennet.com.

Inslee: We have kicked the can of climate change for decades. We have one last chance. Literally the survival of humanity and civilization is in the hands of the next President. Must be top priority of next President. If you share my view, join me and confront the fossil fuel industry. jayinslee.com This is our moral responsibility and we will fulfill it.

Gillibrand: Donald Trump has torn apart the moral fabric of this country. I'm running for President because I want to help people, and I actually have the experience to do that. I know how to beat Donald Trump. He has broken his promises to the American people. I started out in a 2-to-1 Republican district and won it twice. There is no false choice. We don't need a progressive or a moderate, but both. Go to my website that is impossible to spell.

Gabbard: Brink of nuclear catastrophe. We would have 30 minutes if missiles were fired us. Mentions the Hawaii false alert. There is no shelter. It's all a lie. As President I will end this insanity. I will end wasteful regime change wars, and this new cold war.

Castro: This election is all about what kind of nation we're going to become. Donald Trump has not been bashful in his cruelty. I will not be bashful in my common sense and compassion. Our destiny in the years to come is to be the smartest, healthiest, fairest, and most prosperous nation. Say Adios to Donald Trump in 2021.

Yang: Talking heads only talked about me not wearing a tie. This (debate) is a reality TV show. We elected a reality TV President. My flagship proposal would put $1k/month in everyone's hands. Enter your zip code at yang2020.com!

Booker: Thanks Detroit. HWNDU. My mom was born in Detroit. He has lots of ties to Detroit. 95% of my Mom's generation did better than previous, millennials are coin toss. Common bonds, purpose, pain. More indivisible into this one nation under god. corybooker.com

Harris: In my background as AG of California, I took on the big banks. I took on for-profit colleges, and transnational criminal orgs. We have a predator living in the White House. Donald Trump has predatory insticts, preys on who he perceives to be weak and vulnerable. Predators are cowards. (a bunch of stuff)

Biden: We're in a battle for the soul of America. Most consequential election. 8 years of Trump will cause America we know to no longer exist. Go to joe3030 ?????

[END]

---

Previously:

2020 Democratic Debate #1A (Warren, O'Rourke, Booker)
2020 Democratic Debate #1B (Biden, Sanders, Buttigieg, Yang)

Honor Set to Enter TV Market with New Honghu 8K CPU

The company stated that more details will be given at its Developer Conference in Songshan next week, but the preview details included that the processor will have an 8-core design, feature Huawei’s NPU machine learning silicon, audio optimization through the Histen technology, and a variety of decoding and upscaling features.

On the list of the ‘seven advanced image processing technologies’ includes HDR, super resolution (upscaling), noise reduction, dynamic contrast improvement, auto color management, local dimming, and motion estimation/motion compensation for high-frame rate interpolation. None of these technologies are new, but having them together in one accelerated implementation is going to be a cornerstone of this market in the future.

[...] There are a number of high-resolution focused AI-enabled optimization display processors on the market already, such as Sony’s X1, Samsung’s Quantum Processor, and LG’s Alpha 9. Honor’s take on this market relating to the processor will be next week, with perhaps a device or two on display at IFA in early September.

Related: Realtek RTD2983 SoC for 8K TVs: Supports AV1 Codec

'Born to be wild': Kenya's female biker gang

Human resources consultant Njeri Mbogo finds a heightened awareness and spirituality when on her Suzuki Gixxer 155cc: "I notice things that I don't usually notice when travelling by car. I can feel the air, temperature change, smell, the views seem clearer and my senses are generally heightened. It's a wonderful feeling."

Sylvia Thiong'o, a microbiologist who rides an TVS Apache RTR 180, likes to escape the city and dreams one day of riding north on the newly tarred A2 highway from the central town of Isiolo to Moyale, which is on the border with Ethiopia. The 500km trip would pass through several national parks with beautiful scenery.

Lawyer Doreen Murang'a says she is not big on material things: "But my bike [a ZMR Hero Karizma] is something I love. I've named her and I talk to her when she's having a bad day and refuses to start."

It is also a way of escape: "When riding you have to focus entirely on what you are doing, not an impending work deadline or life's usual stresses. It's you, your bike, the road and the wind in your hair and if you're like me, a good playlist."

A positive development.

I really hate to say it and will probably be downmodded into oblivion, but that essay shows that the problem isn't that their explanations contradict. Instead, it shows that you don't understand what is going on with the science or the claims. And then you make some turn into this being a cultural problem of some kind.

But here is a car analogy for you. You are driving a car towards a "T" intersection and they are saying that if you keep hitting the gas bad things are going to happen. Preferably, you should stop before you hit the white line on the road, to avoid oncoming traffic. But you say, "Ha, you don't even know how much each additional angle of accelerator I add increases my speed. Depending on that I could still stop in time or cross the road completely into that brick wall."

Note that the poster starts with the stark claim that I "don't understand what is going on" and then segues into a shaggy dog story about car analogies. No attempt to show that I didn't understand ever happened. Fortunately, the mod givers were feeling generous and no downmodding into oblivion occurred for posting that tripe.

Moving on, there was the dropping of "radiative forcing" numerous times. Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing will get you started, but your problem is that you want a "trivial" answer without putting the work in. The experts are telling you what is going on, but you are ignoring that but then complaining that it is too complicated. Its like going to the doctor, they tell you you have cancer, you ask for proof, they show you the X-ray, and then you bitch about how you refuse to accept the evidence because it is too complicated for a non-radiologist to understand.

Here:

Ah, now I see your problem! You don't understand how global temperatures work, nor how to understand the equations you wield. First, the formula is ∆F = α ln(C/C0), where C is the CO2 concentration in ppm, C0 is the baseline concentration in ppm, α is an experimental constant, and ∆F is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter. You are putting garbage in, namely an arbitrary number in the wrong dimension (Celsius temperature, not a W/m2), so you are getting garbage out. Yes, you can get a function "f" such that f(C) = ∆T, but it isn't the one you gave.

Note the f(C) is still logarithmic to first approximation to changes in variable C. with followup:

Here you go: [https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/clip_image0022.jpg - link provided in subsequent reply - khallow] They are a climate skeptic website and you'll notice that even they use the proper dF formula in their formula (and some other things I said you were missing, but that's under the bridge for this discussion). And what is that? A natural logarithm. Even your own allies (not to mention your previous Wikipedia citation to the rocket equation) disagree with you on the kind of logarithm to use. But like I said, anyone can Google it and find multiple sources, but feel free to double down on how you are right about everything again.

And if one looked at the formula provided in the link, one would see the almost linear relationship between dF and global mean temperature.

This also brings up the red herring of the "natural logarithm". I was using log base 2 in some calculation. Apparently, instead I should use log(x)/log(2) instead (where log is the natural logarithm). That happens to be exactly log base 2. Anyway, this ended with a massacre of straw men:

Kids, here is an important lesson for you. Don't deal with people who can't admit their mistakes and can't reexamine their positions. You see, he can't admit that he could be wrong about this because that might mean he was wrong about other things and he has invested quite a bit of effort into being right. Therefore, when presented with facts he pretends that he was right the whole time (usually by shifting the burden or moving the goal posts) and everyone else is wrong. So when flatly presented with the fact that they were wrong, even when presented to him by a source that otherwise agrees with him, he moves the goalpost.

First it was, "my formula that I got out of thin air and with no citation is right but you must provide your own citation for yours."

Then when that is wrong, it becomes the ad hoc:

• no your formula that you and all the scientists use is wrong.
• My formula (which I previously claimed was theirs until shown otherwise) is correct because it is close to your answer.
• My formula is correct because it ignores the whole reason why CO2 increases temperature.
• My formula is correct because it is close enough to your formula but changed for an unspecified reason that renders all of my calculations off by a scalar.
• My formula is correct because it is ok because it meets my goals of showing calculations of the other formula are incorrect.
• My formula is correct because even though there is a difference between ln(2) and log2(2), it is fine because we are doubling, which somehow makes this more "natural."
• My formula is correct because language that implies a change of the value of an independent variable in an equation is the same as changing the operations applied to them.

Seriously, if they were talking about the climate change caused by the quadrupling of CO2, would you still insist that log2(4) would make more sense or would it be log4(4) (I mean you are talking about quadrupling so use base 4 right?), or would you admit that you are wrong based on all the citations elsewhere, even people who take your side, and use ln(4)?

Regardless, at the end, if you aren't using the same formula as the IPCC and everyone else, your imagined value can't be compared to the values created by anyone else.

Notice that not a one of the list of items had actually happened. Finishing with a bogus comparison

Otherwise, my calculation that the acceleration caused by gravity on Earth is 4.9 m/s/s is correct, and everyone else is wrong, and its a huge conspiracy. What's that? Oh, my formula its (G*M/r^2)/2, which is correct because I based it on the real thing, but that real one is actually wrong because we are dealing with 1 falling object, not two, so we want half the acceleration (which is so much simpler because it avoids all the gravity caused by the other object). Yep, that claim is equally valid as your claim, and the fact that all the evidence so far points to you failing to see (or not acknowledging) how the the present situation and the analogy are almost identical speaks volumes.

Moving on to other things, a final red herring was the demand that I come up with certain parameters:

Please give the range of the coefficient of determination you would find acceptable.

Notice they didn't make any suggestions. This is just a transparent troll looking for arguments from ignorance to latch onto. The way out of that trap is not to play the game.

As I see it, the solution is that I don't provide such numbers and thresholds. Instead, the model builders provide evidence well in excess of what I would require. Seems quite reasonable, particularly given the exceptional claims being made (particularly, of urgent danger that requires immediate action) and that it's their job to provide that persuasive evidence.

I'd say that most of the arguments had the same strategy. Assume I'm wrong and then latch onto anything that appears wrong to the poster.

Well, a bit after I posted my journal, I ran across this interesting article which basically does the same math and comes to the same general conclusion.

We actually knew this (no proof but our word) when we made our special climate inertia global temperature graph (that we think still offers a nice visualisation and proper indication of committed warming (at different climate inertia time scales) at various CO2 levels/year!), but chose to ignore it – and drew a linear line instead, between 280 and (3 degrees warming at) 560 ppm. ‘Because how big can the difference be,’ if you zoom out a bit.

Well, that was a bit silly of us. We had a little chat with atmospheric scientist Bart Verheggen (please also read his special blog post about climate inertia!), who pointed out that –because at 400 ppm we are close to the middle between 280 and 560!– the difference between a logarithmic line and a linear one is now relatively large: not 43% of climate sensitivity, but 51% – a difference between 1.29 and 1.53 degrees.

Wow. +0.24 degrees! That is such a big difference that we immediately added the information in a disclaimer as part of the original article (before open publication). But we felt we also needed to do a bit more than that. And that is because 1.53 is more than 1.50 – and that means that at the current CO2 concentration, judging by conventional climate science, we had already passed the target the moment the political promise was made. Odd, considering the fact that at the UN climate summit none of the world leaders mentioned the fact that establishing their 1.5 degrees ambition requires effective lowering of the CO2 concentration. Instead there came pledges to cut some of the emissions, leading to further growth of the CO2 concentration (to 670 ppm CO2/860 ppm CO2eq!) and bringing the world on a path towards 3.5 degrees warming (if all the pledges will in fact be translated to actual (national) energy policies, indeed another risk factor).

Wow. +0.24 degrees! That is such a big difference that we immediately added the information in a disclaimer as part of the original article (before open publication). But we felt we also needed to do a bit more than that. And that is because 1.53 is more than 1.50 – and that means that at the current CO2 concentration, judging by conventional climate science, we had already passed the target the moment the political promise was made. Odd, considering the fact that at the UN climate summit none of the world leaders mentioned the fact that establishing their 1.5 degrees ambition requires effective lowering of the CO2 concentration. Instead there came pledges to cut some of the emissions, leading to further growth of the CO2 concentration (to 670 ppm CO2/860 ppm CO2eq!) and bringing the world on a path towards 3.5 degrees warming (if all the pledges will in fact be translated to actual (national) energy policies, indeed another risk factor).

I dropped various links from the quote above, but you can still get them in the original article above. A final remark from that article:

This article focuses on that second line (Charney climate sensitivity) – what we call ‘conventional climate science’ in our introduction. It’s the stuff that politicians are supposed to base their climate policies on. Conservative, non-alarmist (especially when you go for median value, as we do) and very solid. Yet still they seem to be fully unaware of even this foundation of modern climate science – as it shows we need to lower CO2 concentration to the level of before the big UN climate conference of December 2015 – back to below 396 ppm to be precise (the atmospheric CO2 trend level of mid-2013).

In other words, they not only do the same math (with better justification I might add), they get the same answer to within a year (probably because they use slightly different starting values for CO2 concentration).

So sure, it could just be another person doing the same wrong calculation and getting the same wrong answer. And even if not so, it's still an approximation. Yet it's more eyeballs actually looking at the math.

I think it's telling that no one has actually found serious problems in the first place resorting to criticisms of minutia (some which never happened) rather than of the method or the conclusions.

Once again, here's the conclusion: the IPCC made a very specific policy recommendation on the basis that 1.5 C of warming from the preindustrial age is preventable with drastic action while simultaneously ignoring that their starting assumptions already preclude limiting global warming to 1.5 C rise and that the error bars on those important climate parameters mean that we could be facing anything from a distant climate threat which we only need to worry about in a couple of centuries to a dire need for climate change adaptation right now.

Why push a particular narrative and set of policy recommendations that has such a big chance to be wrong? I think it's because they can't sell the story harder and still retain any credibility.

In my last journal entry, I briefly mentioned a new girl that started at my work.

Since my last journal, we have continued to have lunch together nearly every day. Sometimes we'll also go for a walk and chat. On one of those early walks, I told her that I had an open marriage and that I really liked her. I also said that there are MANY reasons not to date me, so I'm not going to be all upset if she says no.

Of course, she did say no. She says she doesn't date coworkers. I honestly felt so relieved. This woman was taking over my mind, and being rejected for such a non-personal reason let me move on.

After that, we continued lunching together. Nothing seemed weird which was nice. I kept getting the feeling that she was flirting with me, but maybe she was being friendly. One day our feet touched and we kept them there. Another day she just stole a sip of my beer without asking. Little things like that.

Last weekend, she invited me and my daughter to spend the afternoon at a man-made lake near her house. I picked her up, and headed to the beach. It was windy as hell. Windy enough to pick up the sand and blow it. We had to retreat to a playground that was somewhat sheltered by trees.

We chatted and would lightly touch. We talked about our life and what we wanted. She wants kids bad. She is 35, so unfortunately for her, there is not much time to make that happen.

I dropped her off and we went into her house so my daughter could go pee. As I was about to leave, we embraced in an intense hug. I kissed her beautiful neck (something I had been wanting to do for months), and then she kissed me on the lips.

I left, but the entire weekend, she was in my head. She is completely taking over my brain. I can't focus on anything else. It's incredibly intense. When I drive I feel like I'm a hazard because I can't focus at all.

We had a brief text exchange on Sunday and I told her that I can't get her out of my head. She said she feels the same way, and that we should talk on Monday (today). I have no idea what we are going to do.

This is a dangerous relationship. The intensity is so extreme that it is literally drowning out everything else. We work together. Like she sits 30 feet away from me. No one at my work knows about my open relationship (except her).

Sometimes in open relationships, a "gamechanger" happens. This could be a pregnancy, or someone moving away, or something like that. I feel like she could be that gamechanger.

I don't know what to do... I don't know if I can stop this. I don't want to. I know that I'm playing with fire explosives here, but connections like this happen so infrequently that I don't want to let it go. Some people go their entire lives without a connection like this.

God help me.

Edit: We had our lunch meeting... We both acknowledged how stupid of an idea this is and how we should not continue anything and that this will almost certainly end in disaster... We have a date lined up for Wednesday.

Jeffrey Epstein found nearly unconscious in NYC jail cell after possible suicide attempt

An old Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory finds new life in Jeffrey Epstein news

The news was sensational grist for conspiracy theorists and far-right pundits, who leapt to Twitter to suggest that Esptein’s injuries might somehow be linked to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The theory, known as the “Clinton Body Count,” was soon trending on Twitter, with the corresponding #ClintonBodyCount hashtag attached to more than 70,000 tweets by Thursday afternoon.

Big tech companies have been grappling with their part in the spread of conspiracy theories surrounding politicians, health information and mass violence. Facebook has balked at reigning in the theories spread in groups and on pages, citing a slippery slope of becoming arbiters of truth, while YouTube announced this year it would stop the spread of conspiracies on its platform by tweaking its algorithm to recommend less content that could misinform users.

Some users on Twitter criticized the platform for including the Clinton conspiracy hashtag in its Trending sidebar this morning when it only had a few hundred tweets, mostly from a well-known conspiracy news account.

“Trends are determined by velocity, not volume,” a Twitter spokesperson said in an emailed response to questions about what responsibility it has to keep conspiracy theories off its trending list.

#ClintonBodyCount Conspiracy Re-emerges after Epstein Suicide Attempt Report; Claims Rooted in 1990s GOP Theories

Interesting info on how big a scum Biden is, and why maybe Trump may win again.
If they don't dump Biden, Trump will ROAST HIS ASS and win. Again.

Are they THAT STUPID to push him forward?

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/marc-thiessen-joe-bidens-electability

Moscow Police Arrest More Than 500 at Election Protest

The police in Moscow arrested more than 500 people who had gathered outside City Hall on Saturday to protest what they call unfair elections and demand that opposition candidates be allowed to run for city government.

In anticipation of the unauthorized demonstration, the authorities on Wednesday arrested Aleksei A. Navalny, a foe of President Vladimir V. Putin and a major opposition leader, and sentenced him to 30 days in jail. Other prominent opposition politicians — including Ilya Yashin, Dmitry G. Gudkov and Ivan Zhdanov — have also been detained. A post on the Facebook page of Mr. Yashin, a street activist, said 10 masked police officers had removed him from his apartment in Moscow overnight before the Saturday demonstration.

The Moscow City Council has 45 seats and is responsible for a very large municipal budget. It is controlled by the pro-Kremlin United Russia party. All of its seats, which have a five-year-term, are up for election on Sept. 8. To compete in the elections, candidates not endorsed by a political party must collect about 5,000 signatures, depending on the size of their district. Election officials have so far registered nearly 200 candidates, all of whom are largely supportive of Mr. Putin.

Russia protests: Police arrest hundreds at Moscow rally

Hong Kong protests: Police fire tear gas at Yuen Long rally

Hong Kong police have fired tear gas at an unauthorised protest involving tens of thousands of people.

Demonstrators had been marching through the northern district of Yuen Long, condemning an assault on pro-democracy protesters by armed masked men that took place there last week.

Police have been accused of turning a blind eye and colluding with the attackers, claims they deny.

Forced penetration: If a woman forces a man to have sex, is that rape?

When a man has penetrative sex with a woman without her consent, that's rape. But what if a woman makes a man have penetrative sex with her, without his consent? That's not rape under the law of England and Wales, but the author of a new study of the phenomenon says perhaps it should be.

[...] Aspects of John's story are repeated in the experiences of some of the other men Dr Weare has interviewed. One of her findings is that the perpetrator in "forced-to-penetrate" (FTP) cases is often a female partner or ex-partner (her research focuses only on forced penetration involving men and women), and that the experience is frequently one element in a wider pattern of domestic abuse.

[...] One myth Weare's research dispels is that forced penetration is impossible because men are physically stronger than women. Another is that men view all sexual opportunities with women as positive.

A third myth is that if men have an erection they must want sex. In fact, Weare says, "an erection is purely a physiological response to stimulus".

"Men can obtain and sustain an erection even if they're scared, angry, terrified etc," she says. "There's also research that shows women can respond sexually when they are raped (e.g. have an orgasm) because their body is responding physiologically. This is an issue for both male and female victims that is not discussed enough, but there is clear evidence in this area."

A number of the participants in Weare's 2017 study reported FTP experiences after getting extremely drunk or high, and being unable to stop what was happening. One of those interviewed for the new study describes going home with a woman after a night out clubbing, and blacking out after being given what he suspects was a date rape drug. He says he was then forced to engage in non-consensual sex.

FTP is not rape, but all PIV is rape (of a female).