After a 19-second Google search, I found this:




Based on this, Veganerd makes the claim that Global Warming is a hoax since there were three other times in the last 800,000 years that the temperature was higher compared to the 1000-year average.

Alternatively, Veganerd says you can say temperatures aren't rising now because they were higher in the past.

Look, I am not saying the above graph is sourced well and I'm not asking for a global warming debate. But, as somebody who feels empathy for you, each new post makes you look more stupid than the previous.

In the words of Teddy KGB, "Go away. This one not good for you."

Tell me Vitus, what do you think Trump was trying to say when he gave that statistic. Do you really think he was trying to comment on the single year trend, or do you think he was trying to sell a single data point as an implication that there's a longer trend of things going downhill under the current establishment?

If you think the former, I think you're being intentionally naive.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Candidate A: "Last year there was a 17% increase in homicides."

Fact Checker: "False, last year's 17% increase wasn't part of a longer trend."

Makes sense to me!

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Absolutely!

Edit: Misleading stupid people is not the same as getting your facts wrong.

Ken mentioned that the NY Times fact checking piece found Trump's speech to be mostly accurate.

http://www.nytimes.com/...rump-fact-check.html

That, to me, is a good fact checking piece. It doesn't read like an attempted rebuttal of Trump's speech, it reads like an attempt to verify or disprove the factual claims he made in that speech.

Does anyone feel like the Times article doesn't provide enough "context"?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Except that's not what the fact checking articles said. What they said was more along the lines of "Yes, there was a 17% increase last year. That is a true fact. However, it was presented in a misleading way so as to suggest long term downward trend under previous establishment that only Trump could fix, which is not accurate."

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Interesting that you're just fine with this article, despite the fact that it also doesn't stick strictly to calling the facts true or false. I guess you're fine with additional context, just depending on the degree.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

This is the whole quote:

"Decades of progress made in bringing down crime are now being reversed by this administration's rollback of criminal enforcement. Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's 50 largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years."


He mentions the longer trend.
He blames the Obama admin for having a hand in stopping the trend and causing a 17% rise over the previous year. All that is explicit.
I think he gives his audience the benefit of the doubt that they know what's been going on in this country over the last year or so.

Let me add, I don't care about this Trump claim or any Trump claim. I won't be voting for him. So, Trump isn't the point.

I'm just saying that there has been a newspaper tradition about what "fact checking" means for a long time. I guess it's anyone's prerogative to change things if they'd like. However, when you start getting into judgement calls about what you or I felt someone might have meant the original appeal of "fact checking" -- as opposed to any other form of newspaper commentary -- has been completely lost.

The fact checking articles online have been offering commentary on "true," "mostly true," "false," and with commentary for awhile now. This isn't some new development.


He says the administration is "rolling back criminal enforcement." Do you think that's a true statement with respect to homicides in our big cities? Do you think Pres Obama is reducing prosecutions of murderers?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

OK. But now that somebody brings it up I'm saying I don't like the trend.




Why are homicides up 17%? Please tell me if you know.

I don't think Trump was saying that Obama was reducing prosecutions for murderers. I think the idea is that Obama is supporting a changing social climate that is resulting in law enforcement retreating somewhat (~17%?) from it's previous enforcement role.

You really don't notice a difference in tone between the two articles? Honestly?

Come on, man.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I don't know if anyone knows, which makes it even worse for Trump to blame the administration for homicide rates in cities.


Well, he didn't say "the administration's support of changing social climate,..." He said the administration was rolling back criminal enforcement. To me, that sounds like a charge that the President's administration is directing lower levels of enforcement by city police departments, which I'm finding hard to believe.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

He says the administration is "rolling back criminal enforcement." Do you think that's a true statement with respect to homicides in our big cities? Do you think Pres Obama is reducing prosecutions of murderers?

It's an assertion that is contested. He offered a fact in support of his contention.(Rolling back enforcement is a vague term that is not synonymous with "reducing prosecution.")

The experts themselves think Obama might have played a role in the increase, yes- the infamous Ferguson effect.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Of course I did, which is why I said you seem to be comfortable depending on the degree. C'mon man.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

It's not a matter of degree, it's a matter of approach. The Times piece was legitimate fact checking- the AP piece was an attempt to rebut his speech by claiming his facts were wrong.

I'd have had no problem with the AP piece if it had been presented as an editorial.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

Yeah, but no. When the shoe's on the other foot, that's not how the other side plays. Does anyone know what caused the economic crash of 2008? I don't know if anyone knows. That didn't stop people from blaming Bush. I mean Obama's whole Presidency has been about blaming Bush. I've never seen one fact check on any of that. Maybe you have a quote of yourself saying something like this (above) any time an Obama supporter blamed Bush? Maybe, but probably not. Suddenly, the standard for "knowing" things gets a lot lower when we are blaming Bush.

I think what is happening, is police officers are less likely to get into situations where they could be blamed for excessive force, racial profiling, etcetera, letting more criminals go without the effort they have used in the past due to our President, blaming them, calling them stupid before he even had hardly any information other than a headline. When someone has the power and full force of the federal government to come down on you or a town. People are going to go into more of a cya mode than let's get the job done when they have that hanging over their head.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

And you think that is resulting in more murders?

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

More crime in general in bigger cities.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

That, and I'm no Bush fan.

---

************************
#WeAreTheForge #BlackGunsMatter

"Look, will you guys at leats accept that you are a bunch of dumb asses and just trust me on this one? Please?" BarryP 7/30/2012

Despite what many scientists want you to believe (and they ALWAYS want you to believe they are ALWAYS right), the assertion that global warming is being caused by man cannot be proved. Consensus doesn't equate to fact. 1000 people could all agree on something and still be wrong. They continue to point to the so-called accuracy of their models. I can only say that there are things going on in the atmosphere that we have no concept of. If that weren't true, the computer models used for weather prediction would never be wrong. But they are. I was a weather forecaster for 25 years and I can tell you that atmospheric computer modeling is far from perfect. Man might very well be causing the warming. Then again, he might not as it may very well be another natural cycle. After all, there were climate variations on the earth before there were people. I'll stay away from the political BS associated with this.

Weather =/= Climate