Media(and even some of the vocal scientists trying to urge action) have been guilty of overstating confidence in climate modelling. Which is more or less what they are agreeing on in the video.

The IPCC summary of state of the art climate modelling, and virtually ALL published papers on various climate models agree that the unknown and poorly modelled aspects of our climate are larger than the known influence of CO2.

That is to say, the physical modelling largely operates on energy in and out from the Sun and then playing out how changes in that energy balance operate. The thing is, that energy budget is enormous, and the number of factors at play are even larger and dynamic to make it more fun. The influence of CO2 in the energy budget is one of the relatively straightforward elements, and so we've got a pretty good and confident assessment of how much it impacts energy balance. The problem with climate modelling, is that the CO2 impact is smaller than the errors and unknowns in many other factors in the model including clouds.

Which is all saying that our climate modelling is hard, and even though we know CO2 changes are pushing the energy balance up, our modelling of the energy balance is still not good enough to accurately predict energy balance changes. That means we've got a giant 'all other things being equal' qualifier on model projections because if cloud behaviour changes based on temperature, we KNOW that our errors there are larger than the influence of CO2.

Modellers have been trying to draw attention to this nuance, but it's been deemed inconvenient to persuading the public to act and thus ignored by many pushing for action. The almost inevitable side effect though is that over time the reality of the models inaccuracy will play out and the public is gonna be asking why 'science' was wrong.

It's a joke though, it's not supposed to fair, honest, accurate otherwise, it's just supposed to be funny.

Setup 1: We all presumably are familiar with Trump's "sleepy Joe" nickname and constant criticism of Biden's fitness.
Setup 2: Trump explaining at great, great length why he walked slowly down a ramp because of how treacherous it was.

Punchline: Joe Biden literally running up said ramp.

That's funny. Crying about inaccuracies or fallacies in it is like saying chickens don't roam freely so how can so many be crossing roads?

When I bike around town and some asshole almost hits me with his car, I oftentimes catch up to them at a red light. I usually knock on their window and ask them to be more careful because they almost fucking killed me. Politely. But usually a little bit of adrenaline behind my voice because, you know, he almost killed me.

Sometimes they tell me to fuck off. But 9 times out of 10 they say they didn't even see me and that they're sorry. And honestly, even though they almost killed me, sorry makes a lot of the hate go away.

Can one of these pigfuckers please, for the love of fucking god, just say, "I was wrong. I'm sorry that I underestimated the breadth and deadliness of this disease. Please listen to other sources of information. I'm obviously misinformed."

But not one yet. Not a single one has admitted to their inaccuracy. Not even good ol' @bobknight33.

Helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick. You can tell a proper flick from its opposite, as it is both soft and quick and seems like there is a lot of it, which may or may not be an optical illusion. The danger be your cocks is full of bruisin’ if you fuck it up. There are a multitude of factors. I found a club in which a bunch of dudes do practice helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick.

At the totem of the storeroom I showed them how to relax and to tell a proper flick from its opposite as it is both soft and quick, strong as an apocalypse. Don’t knock it Miss. It is a ritual of manhood. A man should preserve it like canned good, not that there’s very much choice in the matter. Young boys innately know the joys of hey batter, batter, picking up stick to swing in a rock. Isn’t any shot because they know the grip flicks swish to their own cock quicker than they learn to love the lick of another boy’s lollipop, not undermine the sucking of dicks.

Live in love my brothers. Teach me some of your tricks. It is not my own area of expertise. I only know my own dick as I check to squeeze. I got on it tighter than you might expect, but if my rhyme is so tight how would I ejac-ulate is what you contemplate, but if you really want to know it ask your mom for the tape, because I came to cockcenteric Centrifusions, stretch out with your feelings and sense the hugeness. Oh, the impulse to prove this newtonian concept of the universe, whether through boners or non erect dudes rehearse their mystery over gravity, magically flinging their anatomy as they battle the old enemy of Adam and Eve, not the devil, not the serpent, but the apple, drop in the knowledge on their heads like my rappel du-tee-de you, mother fucker.

Helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick. Can stop to check if you are rocking it properly, wouldn’t want to let you be flopping it sloppily, ladies in the house, don’t let us with the monopoly; Ying to the Yang, to the wang – to the follow me. Helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick.

You can tell about the flick from its opposite as it is both soft and quick and seems like there is a lot of it. Don’t throttle it, ease up on throttle. You can got a lot of lift with a little bit of twaddle, which is like twiddle but from the bottom in the middle, pop-up to the top, flop back down like a griddle cake, or the smack with a little shake.

The more you practice helps you mitigate the inaccuracy of hitting shapes not exactly within the state of helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter dick, helicopter helicopter dick. [https://lybio.net/c-command-helicopter-dick/comedy/]

I didn't straw man anything. His argument was that the animal is about to "go through hell" in "a few days".

My counter is that the animal is not going to go through hell (not abused) and will be living for more than a few days. I backed that assertion up with facts that I am familiar with for the subject matter. I didn't even mention other inaccuracies about the butchering process that really have nothing to do with the animal going "through hell" since it has been rendered unconscious before anything happens.

Does every fact in his description have to be 100% false for his overall analysis to be repudiated? Seems like a high bar for challenging an opinion.

Thanks bob. I thought you might come back with an actual argument, but instead you went out of your way to not only prove my point, but to demonstrate
a) how bad you are at debating
b) exactly why this ad is needed and
c) how utterly warped your worldview is.

As for the rest of your rambling screed, it’s so full of nonsense, inaccuracies and fear that there really isn’t any value in addressing it.

The film struggles with pacing issues that cause the first act of the film to move to fast. Not to mention a couple of inaccuracies that's is sure to bug queen fans like it did to me. Other than that the film is really fun and quite touching in other parts especially the live aid scene which was by far the best part. Queens music is fantastic as always but rami malek as Freddie mercury is insanely amazing. Halfway through the movie I forgot I was even watching rami but instead Freddie that's how good he was. The supporting cast is great as well every member of the band feels authentic and realistic. Overall I had an amazing and fun time with bohemian rhapsody despite its flaws. Remember this is a biopic and creative liberties were taken meaning it's not a documentary.
[url redacted]

I always end up skeptical of videos/articles of this nature when I'm able to pick out inaccuracies based on my vast storehouse of useless knowledge. For example, Walton's Five and Dime was actually a Ben Franklin franchise. He was frustrated with the franchise agreement, which caused him to go independent and open the first WalMart.

I really liked the 3 main games in this series, though the first version I played of the earliest ones were apparently nerfed on the PS2.

Good video too, really synthesized what seemed to be happening with the company teeter-tottering between improving the core mechanics of the squad tactics with appealing to more the quicker twitch FPS play that seems to be the industry default.

The squad tactics are what made these games fun to play, but the inaccuracy of the weapons in iron sites was infuriating. Authentic? Maybe, but I think it was a reasonable criticism and I can see how the over-correction lead to watering down of "what made the game great".

As the "Bozo" who runs the very site that you just attacked, I would like a chance to respond to your baseless accusations, sir.

I was plant-based lacto-vegetarian at the time of writing that post, and was vegan just 13 days after writing it, on November 27th. I am now going back and forth between vegan and vegetarian due to severe digestive health issues, but thanks for trying to say I am using that post to "justify" anything I do.

I wrote the blog post, and if you read it, I simply mention why Greger is unreliable as the "bulletproof" source that many vegans make him out to be, including his bias and his inaccuracies. I never once attacked him as a person, which you would know if you actually read the post, I simply mention that inaccurate claims that he doesn't benefit from his work, because facts state that the charity he gives to is his own charity, which does nothing other than fund his videos, books, and lectures.

These are facts. This isn't even an opinion. I am not trying to attack Greger, and I think that if he dropped his biases at the front door, and didn't use flawed or non-existent studies to promote this that or the other, I would like him more.

But to be honest, no, he isn't this infallible being people claim him to be.

and no, the WHO report, if you read it, does not mention Chicken Nuggets or Turkey Slices. The FAQ section I linked to only mentions poultry once, as the definiton of a processed food. But it also said:

"21. Should we eat only poultry and fish?

The cancer risks associated with consumption of poultry and fish were not evaluated."

Read the actual post before commenting on whether or not a blog is "opinion"

Sincerely,

The Bozo

It's the thin edge of the wedge. Inaccuracy in online video titles mean the terrorists win!

All because the OP couldn't think of "centrifugal disintegration".

@Payback -- The Youtube comments area is not to be considered a potential source of rational discussion.

Assume that one concedes to your point about "terminal velocity" being the wrong phrase to use here. What would be better? And I'll note that there are many potential metrics for "better" -- conveying the correct idea precisely, doing so in a concise manner, etc.

"Neodymium Magnets Reaching a Velocity at Which the Centrifugal Force Upon Them Exceeds the Magnetic Force Holding Them Together" makes for a more accurate title, but might lose brevity points. The "Terminal Velocity" title conveys maybe only 75% of the accuracy of the more precise title, but with a greater than 25% savings in length (5 words vs 19). Although I'm sure a more optimally brief AND accurate title exists.

Not trying to be snarky, and I 100% agree that there are situations where saying something with complete accuracy and careful precision is extremely important. But perhaps an online video about magnets spinning apart can be at least partially excused for opting for brevity over accuracy, especially in something as trivial as the title. Especially when the inaccuracy can be noted and explained in the comments section by well meaning viewers.

"Automatically ok"? Not necessarily. But in cases where it makes sense, at a stretch even "plot sense" for the character to be there; yeah, I think that is OK.

The Last Samurai isn't a documentary. But, the general historical justification for Tom Cruise's character being in Japan is pretty much valid. Meiji was interested in the West -- clothes, technology, weapons, and military. He actually did hire Westerners to train his army, although from what I read it sounds like they were German, French, and Italian rather than American. Still, the movie portrays the general situation/setting with at least *decent* broad-strokes historical accuracy. LOADS of movies deviate from even this degree of historical accuracy *way* more without drawing complaints; particularly if their main purpose is entertainment and not education / documentary.


Your hypothetical reverse movie makes some valid criticisms. Even though it would have been historically possible for a Westerner to be in Japan at the time -- even to be involved with training a Western-style military -- it would be unlikely for such a person to get captured, run into a Shogun that speaks English, become a badass (or at least passable) samurai warrior, and end up playing a major role in politics and significantly influencing Emperor Meiji.

My defense against those criticisms is that, for me at least, the movie is entertaining; which is kinda the point. Your "Union Samurai" movie might be equally entertaining and therefore given an equal pass on historical inaccuracies by me.

The whole characters as a "lens through which the audience can appreciate a culture/history outside their own" issue is (slightly) more weighty to me. I don't think those are often necessary, but I don't feel like my intelligence is being insulted if the movie maker feels that they are in order to sell tickets.

I love the Chinese historical novel "Three Kingdoms". A few years ago, John Wu made the movie "Red Cliff", mostly about one particular battle in the historical period portrayed in that book. For the Chinese audience, Wu made the movie in two parts, summed up about four and a half hours long. For the US / West, he made a version trimmed to just over two hours. Why? Because he (and a team of market researchers, I'm sure) knew that very few Westerners would go to see a 4+ hour long movie, entirely in Mandarin Chinese (with subtitles), about a piece of Chinese history from ~1800 years ago that very few in the West have ever heard of or know anything about.

I think the full 4+ hour long movie is great. In my personal top 10 favorite movies of all time, ahead of most Hollywood stuff. But I also understand that there's no way that movie would appeal to all but a tiny, tiny fraction of Western viewers in that full-on 4+ hour format. But, even though I personally think the cut-down 2 hour "US" version is drastically inferior to the full cut, I am glad that he made it because it gives a suitably accurate introduction to the subject matter to more people in the West (just like the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" and "Dynasty Warriors" videogames do), and makes that tiny, tiny fraction of Western people that know anything about it a little less tiny. While being entertaining along the way.

For other movies, sometimes the best way that a filmmaker can sell a movie to an audience that otherwise might not accept it (at least in large enough numbers to justify the production costs) may be to insert one of these "lens" characters for the audience to identify with. I don't think there is inherently anything wrong with that. It might not work for movies that are taking a more hardline approach to historical / contextual accuracy (ie., if Tom Cruise showed up in "Red Cliff" in circa 200AD China), but outside of those situations, if that is what the studio thinks it will take to sell tickets... Cool.

The Last Samurai is, like @ChaosEngine said, a movie primarily about an outsider learning a new culture (and accepting his own past). He serves as that lens character, but actually the hows and whys of his character arc are the main points of interest in the movie, at least to me.

I'm sure that an awesome, historically accurate movie could be made dealing with young Emperor Meiji, Takamori (who Katsumoto seems to be based on in The Last Samurai), and the influence of modernization on Japanese culture at the time. It could be made with no Western "lens" character, no overt influence by any particular individual Westerner, and be entirely in Japanese. But that movie wouldn't be The Last Samurai, wouldn't be attempting to serve the same purpose as The Last Samurai, and very likely wouldn't sell as many tickets (in the US) as The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise!) did. That wouldn't make it a worse movie, just an apple instead of an orange.