And in return for your one vote for Malloy, you get dozens of downvotes. Probably not a great sign for your candidate.

You do know the governor is a republican, right?

Yes, but, the fed didn't cause high energy prices. To the extent that this inflation is caused by high energy prices, the blame lies on corporations and the war in Ukraine.

Hmm, an example. How about Newton's laws? Those are mostly correct, until they aren't. Was Newton lying when he came up with his theories?

How about quantum mechanics? That changed our thinking on just how small elements of matter are, and the lack of predictability of the universe.

More recently, how about climate science? Early on we thought the ice caps were going to be melted by now. Turns out they were off by a number of decades. Even now there are huge error bars on the predicted sea level rise by 2100, and it changes every year.

>If, however, something is presented as a medical fact and there is even an infinitesimal chance that it is wrong, yeah, I think it should include a disclaimer. Every FDA approved medicine has a ton of them.

This I agree with. But the point I was trying to make is that would include everything. Why are there disclaimers for every FDA approved medicine? Because we never know for sure. Clinical studies are great but they never tell the whole story.

Maybe there should've been a disclaimer of some kind on the statement that vaccinated people can't spread the virus. But from my perspective, that asterisk is always there.

>It involves three steps: Testable, Replicable, Stable. What you don't see there is "At one time it was believed...".

I'm well aware of the scientific method. Dozens of science courses taken during college. Apparently you aren't, considering our understanding of literally everything has been constantly refined over the centuries since it was conceived.

Hypotheses are formed, tested profusely, and occasionally found to be incorrect or improved on in the future. Outside of math there is very little we still believe to be true today that was believed even decades ago, let alone centuries.

What do you figure, we should put an asterisk on every statement ever made?

"*May be proved incorrect in the future, and some dumbfuck on reddit might call it a lie"

>Knowledge and Facts are not the same thing. Did I reference knowledge anywhere?

You referenced the vaccines and whether someone vaccinated could pass the virus along or not. At one time it was believed the person couldn't. Early clinical trials showed this.

Over time it was shown that, actually, vaccinated people can pass along the virus.

Initially what was KNOWN turned out to be different from what is now KNOWN. Knowledge. Facts are learned, and added to our knowledge over time as new data/information is received.

We can't have 100% certainty in everything at all times.

>"If you get vaccinated, you can't spread the virus" This was presented as fact, while in reality it was a lie.

At the time this was said, it was correct to the best of everyone's knowledge. Later it was updated when more data came in about the efficacy of the vaccines.

The flip happened with your second example, of course.

Knowledge is not some static, unchanging thing. If we treat it as such, as you're treating it, no public official or private entity would ever make a hard statement in fear that it may be proved wrong and spun as a lie.

No wonder politicians are so damn wishy washy, because a portion of the population inevitably calls them liars if they turn out to be wrong about something.

>The reason you don't have time is because it is impossible.

The reason I don't have time is because I have a job.

>Misinformation and Disinformation are used to suppress speech.

In what way? I don't see how calling these things "lies" would suppress speech less.

>Why try and stop ideas

The only reason I will give is that certain ideas are harmful to society, simple as that. Whether that is justification for censorship or not, well, that's up for debate.

I never said facts required nuance. Language is enhanced with nuance.

And no, I don't have time to look up examples of misinformation. I could look up the definition for you, if you'd like. You can still call them "lies", but other people use different terms. It's a made up word with it's own definition just like literally every other word in the dictionary.

I see you're completely incapable of nuance, and fully subscribe to the idea of black and white thinking.

Carry on

Actually, disinformation would be what you would call a "lie". It is intentionally incorrect or misleading inormation meant to do harm. Malice behind it.

Misinformation is inaccurate information formed through some other means. By error of some kind, or misunderstanding. It's disinformation without the malicious intent. Otherwise, not a "lie". Lies are told when the correct information is known and withheld.

Both are words to describe two different concepts. Do you understand how words work?

"and information is finally free"

Ya, and that's been going just swimmingly. From pseudoscience, to misinformation, to conspiracy-pushing groups such as Q-Anon, everyone's opinion has an equal platform. Yay.

But misinformation and disinformation are, by definition, two different things.

Edit: I also wouldn't call accurate information "the truth", considering that word is used by many people pushing garbage narratives. It's just information. No narrative attached.

And because people like you would believe these falsehoods, this article is quite concerning.

The excerpt from Vermont's code is even worse, includes repaying debts I believe. Of course that'd be outlawed at the federal level, but still.

Are you saying the solution is that people pony up $50k to buy an acre of land somewhere, more money to build a shelter, then proceed to hunt and garden for all of their food needs? Most land in Vermont is privately owned. The rest is state owned (state forests, etc.) Also, living off the land in a state with cold winters is especially difficult.

Obviously that is not what was implied.

Exactly. Calculations like that need to be ran based on data available and incorporated into policy.

Fortunately companies are beginning to see the threat in the long-term, which is good to see. Companies think longer term than most people or politicians, so I see some hope there.

Case in point: several auto manufacturers have pledged to no longer sell ICE cars in 10-15 years. That's certainly not from regulatory pressure.

To your last point: "the cost of changing has to be less than the cost of staying the same..."

Part of the issue here is we only look at the short-term dollar signs. We don't assign any cost to maintaining the status quo and heating up the planet. Increased storms (and storm damage), lowered crop yields, droughts, etc. These costs annually will be in the billions in the coming decades.

In that sense, low-carbon energy is far cheaper than fossil fuels even without the subsidies.

That makes a lot of sense. Due to the EROI, it's almost never cheaper (at least right now) to go with renewables.

I think flipping the subsidies makes sense. Even if the goal is not switching to renewables, the fact we still subsidize such a highly profitable industry (oil) is baffling.

I agree for the most part. But I also think if we actually cared and prioritized the issue, we could solve the problem and get off oil in a couple decades.

Instead we bicker about how exactly we should tackle the problem, or whether climate change actually exists or not. Meanwhile countries like Germany and Scotland are miles ahead of us (km, perhaps?), generating significant portions of their electricity demand with renewables. Germany at about 50%, Scotland at "the equivalent of" 100%. We could do way better.

Storage and/or a better grid (w/ respect to your baseload comment). If we could transmit power longer distances, renewable surpluses in one area can be pushed to another. Especially in the case of wind turbines. (Doesn't help solar at night, obviously)