New Predictions

[PsYcHo]

I think people are underestimating Trump's ego, and how it could be a good thing. If he does too much crazy shit, he won't get re-elected (in his mind, just postulating here) and that would bruise his ego. I think he said whatever the hell he thought would get him elected, and it worked. I really think he is much further center/left than he let on, so like every other politician ever, I don't expect him to do a third of what he promised.

[Red]

Well ok, then you concede you can't have an informed opinion about whether or not she is corrupt. So implying she isn't when you haven't looked into it is not logical.

Never said she was, never said she wasn't.

Zero clue what this means.

Good luck then.

Do you have proof?

I don't really have to offer any, since you have the internet, but I'll try, since it's hard to find an exact source on this stuff.

Have you actually studied it, or do you just believe that?

That's what the experts say.

I'm not just blindly believing everything they say, I always hold a bit of skepticism. But they know more than me, so I think it's rational to trust them.

So you haven't really studied it.

I said that, and I have said that before.

If the experts are debating, that's not scientific consensus.

If the majority of the experts say yes, that's likely the most probable answer.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

It's about if you want an opinion on something scientific or political, ask someone with more knowledge than you in the subject.

Nuclear energy is not relevant in this election because both candidates support it, so it's not a bright side of the results.

Better than Bernie, who doesn't.

Obamacare isn't a scientific position, there isn't a relevant consensus. You actually have to look into it.

I already said that it doesn't always involve science. Are you even reading this, or are you just not paying attention?

I'm not sure if GMOs should be on our priority list. In fact, I just saw an interview between Bill Maher and the President in which they basically said GMOs don't have higher yields and that they use just as many if not more pesticides (Bill Maher was talking about a study about it and Obama agreed, and since Obama is pro-science don't find it hard to believe).

First of fucking all, the President and Bill Maher aren't experts. And brimstone offered as refutation to that:

GE crops don't need higher yield, they protect the otherwise high yield conventionally bread plants have from pests that eat the plants, diseases that destroy them, or weeds that compete with them compromising growth.
If you devote enough time and infrastructure to weeding and controlling pests and get lucky enough to have disease free stock and keep pathogens out of your field by other methods, transgenics are totally unnecessary; the issue is that we don't have the manpower or technology to do that on a wide scale, or the land to waste for lack of such attention.

Nuclear energy is important, but it's not the only solution we have. Some European countries have done a lot to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without expanding nuclear energy. I think nuclear energy is overall a good thing, but it's not the end all be all.

[/quote]
Yes, that's why I mentioned fusion energy. Plus, there are other methods we can use. We can use solar (But that's not yet very efficient, if my sources are correct, they're only about 15% efficient), but nuclear seems to be the most efficient.

[EquALLity]

Come on, EquALLity, you know perfectly well it is epistemologically bankrupt to base your beliefs on what a comedian and a lawyer/politician claim based on a study they may very well have completely misunderstood.

Actually, I don't know what epistemologically bankrupt means.

I agree not to trust Bill Maher necessarily about that, since he has a bias against GMOs, but Obama was overall pro-GMO in that interview and is very intelligent.
I'll try to find the study.

Perhaps this: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html

But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.

The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.

Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.

This proves the article is not just biased because the NY Times secretly believes GMOs are harmful and is engaging in a smear:

Fears about the harmful effects of eating G.M. foods have proved to be largely without scientific basis. The potential harm from pesticides, however, has drawn researchers’ attention. Pesticides are toxic by design — weaponized versions, like sarin, were developed in Nazi Germany — and have been linked to developmental delays and cancer.

“These chemicals are largely unknown,” said David Bellinger, a professor at the Harvard University School of Public Health, whose research has attributed the loss of nearly 17 million I.Q. points among American children 5 years old and under to one class of insecticides. “We do natural experiments on a population,” he said, referring to exposure to chemicals in agriculture, “and wait until it shows up as bad.”

Figures from the United States Department of Agriculture show herbicide use skyrocketing in soybeans, a leading G.M. crop, growing by two and a half times in the last two decades, at a time when planted acreage of the crop grew by less than a third. Use in corn was trending downward even before the introduction of G.M. crops, but then nearly doubled from 2002 to 2010, before leveling off. Weed resistance problems in such crops have pushed overall usage up.

But a broad yield advantage has not emerged. The Times looked at regional data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, comparing main genetically modified crops in the United States and Canada with varieties grown in Western Europe, a grouping used by the agency that comprises seven nations, including the two largest agricultural producers, France and Germany.

For rapeseed, a variant of which is used to produce canola oil, The Times compared Western Europe with Canada, the largest producer, over three decades, including a period well before the introduction of genetically modified crops.

Despite rejecting genetically modified crops, Western Europe maintained a lead over Canada in yields. While that is partly because different varieties are grown in the two regions, the trend lines in the relative yields have not shifted in Canada’s favor since the introduction of G.M. crops, the data shows.

For corn, The Times compared the United States with Western Europe. Over three decades, the trend lines between the two barely deviate. And sugar beets, a major source of sugar, have shown stronger yield growth recently in Western Europe than the United States, despite the dominance of genetically modified varieties over the last decade.

Jack Heinemann, a professor at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, did a pioneering 2013 study comparing trans-Atlantic yield trends, using United Nations data. Western Europe, he said, “hasn’t been penalized in any way for not making genetic engineering one of its biotechnology choices.”

You know who's done the best job? The countries that have been using nuclear energy. France in particular, who's running on nearly 80% nuclear, has been very succesful. Germany, a country that's gone all-in on renewables, is doing much worse. The Netherlands, a country where nuclear power is never even talked about as a viable option, is doing worst of all (along with some tiny city states).

Have you seen the TED talk I've posted here before, or Pandora's Promise? I really think you should. I believe he compares European countries in there as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZXUR4z2P9w

I never disagreed with that nuclear energy is apart of the solution. I'm saying that there doesn't seem to be scientific consensus about it, so it's not clear cut in regards to all of the safety issues, and it's not the only part of the solution.

I've seen Pandora's Promise, but you can't take everything in it at face value. From my understanding, none of the people in it were actual scientists (they were journalists), and the statement about being able to store all of the world's nuclear energy in a stadium is misleading.

Again, I support nuclear energy overall. I support almost anything that we can replace coal, oil, and natural gas with. But it's not the only part of the solution, and I don't think you can ignore legitimate concerns with it (from scientists).

[EquALLity]

I don't really have to offer any, since you have the internet, but I'll try, since it's hard to find an exact source on this stuff

K, please get back to me when you actually have evidence to back up your claims.

[Red]

I don't really have to offer any, since you have the internet, but I'll try, since it's hard to find an exact source on this stuff

K, please get back to me when you actually have evidence to back up your claims.

You generally don't either, but whatevs

It's hard to find any supporting nuclear power since the writers tend to be anti-nuclear power, and probably aren't experts.
http://www.powermag.com/experts-more-nuclear-power-is-needed/

This website offers a lot of information on nuclear power.
http://www.nei.org/News-Media/Media-Room/Third-Party-Database

[brimstoneSalad]

We can only hope Trump backs up on some of his lies and promises, and is a relatively liberal or do-nothing president.

How likely do you think this is?

I have no basis upon which to make this prediction, so it would be a totally speculative ass-pull.

I'll say 90%.

He's pretty tight with Giuliani, who himself is a pretty liberal Republican.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IrE6FMpai8

He thanked him in his acceptance speech, and he's had him pretty close since the primaries as an adviser.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Rudy_Giuliani.htm
Look at those issues; they mirror A LOT of what Trump has been saying.

He's also had some serious clashes with his VP pick, which he likely only chose to appeal to the fundamentalist base who rightly didn't trust Trump.
By most accounts (aside from a weak claim from him about god) he doesn't seem to have a religious bone in his body, so this probably isn't about Christian ideology for him.

Some don't think he has any ideology at all, which may be true:
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/29/13086236/trump-beliefs-category-error

In the past, Trump has advocated some pretty liberal policies, like universal healthcare, and a massive wealth tax to pay off the national debt.
I'm trying to get a handle on his psychology, and I think he wants to be praised and admired/widely loved. He's probably going to lean popularist, and popular policies lean left, at least in terms of welfare, and now a little in terms of social issues too.
He had to lean socially right in this election because Hillary was so center, but a lot of his policies don't resemble Republican principles at all, and now that he has used the fundamentalist base to get elected, he'll probably cast them aside short of token gestures.

His platform has not been as conservative as somebody like Bush or even Romney, and his actual presidency will probably be even more liberal on most fronts.

Here's a little hint to what his policies may be like:
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days

It's a mixed bag, some very liberal, some conservative.
There are several policies in there I actually like a lot (and several I hate). I'm left wondering where he got the good ones from.

One thing is for sure, this will be very, very expensive.

[brimstoneSalad]

When you say experts agree, what does that mean? Nuclear energy doesn't seem to me to be safe in all instances according to scientific consensus. See: http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/nuclear-plant-security/impacts-of-a-terrorist-attack#.WCOkudUrLIU

EquALLity, I already debunked this in another thread. These people are morons and charlatans. They are not an objective source, they're a partisan liberal echo chamber, and they don't care about science.

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/11/21/union_of_concerned_scientists_are_charlatans_108371.html
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/08/22/gmos-double-standards-union-concerned-scientists/#.WCPcx9R95pR
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/05/06/video-union-of-concerned-scientists-blames-gmos-for-superweeds-but-issue-more-complex/

Unless you want to step up with some evidence to defend their fear mongering and pseudoscience, please STOP citing them as if it means anything about the opinions of actual scientists. Particularly since I ALREADY addressed this bunk argument in detail. You might as well be citing the Weston Price institute or creation science as your argument about scientific opinion.

There are credible institutions that carry some weight in and of themselves in terms of their opinions on the research. "Union of Concerned Scientists" is not one.
That doesn't mean we can't consider their arguments when they make them, but we should assume them to be biased on the subjects they have been shown to be biased on, and we should take anything they say with a grain of salt, not refer to it as an authority.

Again though, Hillary supports nuclear energy.

This is correct, so nuclear wasn't an issue in this race.

The important issues in this race were CO2 limits and healthcare. On at least the former issues, Hillary was a lot better.

But there are other issues that are very important besides nuclear energy and GMOs, like healthcare. The republicans have no reason to to repeal Obamacare, and that would prevent people with pre-existing conditions from getting health insurance and would throw millions of people who got healthcare from it under the bus.

Incorrect. Trump wants to retain the ban on denying people with preexisting conditions.
Please start a thread on healthcare, that could be an interesting discussion. The Republican platform on healthcare is currently very different. Some of those differences are good, some not so good.

Actually, EVERYBODY, this thread is very messy. Let's close it and start individual threads on each topic. From if Trump will start WWIII to healthcare to whatever else is being discussed. The election is over so predictions are kind of irrelevant now.