Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #651  
Old 01-24-2019, 05:59 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
EE, ďthe last person in the room to realize itĒ? Seriously? Wow. Just a tad lacking in self-awareness, eh?
And today, in "Is SlackerInc that much of a dumb motherfucker"...

Quote:
Thatís the one. Scroll down to Figure 18.2 and the accompanying blue caption. Cooling degree days is one of the four choices for the map, as well as a helpful explanation in the caption that they are associated with ďan increase in energy use for air conditioningĒ. So...what about heating degree days? I guess they just plumb forgot! The makers of these reports always seem to have been so meticulous to craft something that looks extremely thorough, yet again and again they get absent-minded about representing the positive effects. Just a complete coincidence, Iím sure. Couldnít have anything to do with the fact that the people preparing the reports are keen to effect certain policies vis-a-vis CO2 emissions.
Yes! Yes, he is that much of a dumb motherfucker! If you bet on "yes", collect your earnings. If you bet 100 dollars, come collect your $1 winnings! By all means, let's claim some insane conspiracy theory because the report doesn't contain a specific figure you wish it did (when in fact the figure it does cite is tertiary to the point of the report to begin with), because that's always a good look.
  #652  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:36 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...that certainly would be how a conspiracy theorist would look at it.
Hardly a conspiracy. In the case of sociology, they are explicit about their intent to use scientific means to achieve the progressive amelioration of poverty and other ďsocial problemsĒ. Which is great, bully for them. These climate scientists are mostly just doing something similar while playing holier-than-thou and insisting they are just reporting back about the facts in the world around them (which is another way to do sociology, BTW, but one which has over the years been mostly drummed out of the academy).

I honestly donít mind that kind of thing if itís used successfully to achieve an aim I support. Say, cherrypicking numbers and shading the truth to help rally support for a mass bikeshare program, where I believe the end justifies these fairly mild means. But Iím not for investing a lot into this CO2 deal, so Iím standing up against it.

I still strongly support federal subsidies for solar and wind, mind you. So itís a classic case of you lefties getting your panties in a bunch because we on the center-left are willing to make some compromises or dial down the urgency on some of your agenda.
  #653  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:48 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
BTW, in the Midwest heating degree days are one of the toughest economic burdens on the poor, even if they wouldn’t consciously look at it that way. Heating your house or apartment all winter long is a major cost, and it’s the same cost regardless of how much rent your place can command. So it cuts against low income housing, in a ripple effect. This is no minor statistic they left off. Cooling degree days are only relevant in combination with heating degree days, no matter where you live. The Midwest is one of the toughest places to live because of a lethal combination with brief reprieves in spring and fall.
  #654  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:54 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Hardly a conspiracy. In the case of sociology, they are explicit about their intent to use scientific means to achieve the progressive amelioration of poverty and other ďsocial problemsĒ. Which is great, bully for them. These climate scientists are mostly just doing something similar while playing holier-than-thou and insisting they are just reporting back about the facts in the world around them (which is another way to do sociology, BTW, but one which has over the years been mostly drummed out of the academy).

I honestly donít mind that kind of thing if itís used successfully to achieve an aim I support. Say, cherrypicking numbers and shading the truth to help rally support for a mass bikeshare program, where I believe the end justifies these fairly mild means. But Iím not for investing a lot into this CO2 deal, so Iím standing up against it.

I still strongly support federal subsidies for solar and wind, mind you. So itís a classic case of you lefties getting your panties in a bunch because we on the center-left are willing to make some compromises or dial down the urgency on some of your agenda.
...what the fuck kind of mealy mouthed response is this?

Sara C. Pryor, Indiana University

Donald Scavia, University of Michigan

Charles Downer, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center

Marc Gaden, Great Lakes Fishery Commission

Louis Iverson, U.S. Forest Service

Rolf Nordstrom, Great Plains Institute

Jonathan Patz, University of Wisconsin

G. Philip Robertson, Michigan State University

These are the authors of the study you are talking about.

You have insinuated that these people "are keen to effect certain policies vis-a-vis CO2 emissions."

Where is the evidence that these people are "keen to effect certain policies" and that they let that keenness override their dedication to the scientific method?
  #655  
Old 01-24-2019, 07:08 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
I’m not accusing them of malfeasance. They didn’t doctor the data. They didn’t lie. They were just selective, as a lawyer would be, about which facts to present.
  #656  
Old 01-24-2019, 07:15 AM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 4,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Iím not accusing them of malfeasance. They didnít doctor the data. They didnít lie. They were just selective, as a lawyer would be, about which facts to present.
...I never claimed you accused them of malfeasance. Scientists are not lawyers. The comparison is asinine.

Where is your evidence that they disregarded the scientific method and were selective with "which facts to present" for the purposes of "effecting certain policies?"
  #657  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:15 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Iím not accusing them of malfeasance. They didnít doctor the data. They didnít lie. They were just selective, as a lawyer would be, about which facts to present.
Jesus christ are you literally an FXMastermind sock?
  #658  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:24 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,409
To be fair, the scientists did carefully select the facts to present, only presenting facts that could be backed up by empirical data. They deliberately excluded any facts obtained via the anal extraction method, whereas the climate change denialists have been more inclusive in this regard.
  #659  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:31 AM
Bookkeeper's Avatar
Bookkeeper Bookkeeper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Ottawa, Canuckistan
Posts: 2,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BTW, in the Midwest heating degree days are one of the toughest economic burdens on the poor, even if they wouldnít consciously look at it that way. Heating your house or apartment all winter long is a major cost, and itís the same cost regardless of how much rent your place can command. So it cuts against low income housing, in a ripple effect. This is no minor statistic they left off. Cooling degree days are only relevant in combination with heating degree days, no matter where you live. The Midwest is one of the toughest places to live because of a lethal combination with brief reprieves in spring and fall.
You are overlooking one of the effects warmer winters will likely have in your area. Ice storms can be more devastating than heating bills, especially if your furnace isn't running due to widespread power outages.
  #660  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:51 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Iím not accusing them of malfeasance. They didnít doctor the data. They didnít lie. They were just selective, as a lawyer would be, about which facts to present.
As a person who has a science degree, and loves the concept of the scientific method, what you describe IS malfeasance, IS doctoring the data, IS lying.
  #661  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:01 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Iím not accusing them of malfeasance. They didnít doctor the data. They didnít lie. They were just selective, as a lawyer would be, about which facts to present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...I never claimed you accused them of malfeasance. Scientists are not lawyers. The comparison is asinine.

Where is your evidence that they disregarded the scientific method and were selective with "which facts to present" for the purposes of "effecting certain policies?"
SlackerInc is just falling into Lysenkoism here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Quote:
In modern usage, the term lysenkoism has become distinct from normal pseudoscience. Where pseudoscience pretends to be science, lysenkoism aims at attacking the legitimacy of science itself, usually for political reasons. It is the rejection of the universality of scientific truth, and the purposeful defamation of the scientific method to the level of politics.
  #662  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:07 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Let's have some respect for the English language here. "Doctoring data" would be like actually editing a dataset, tampering with measuring equipment, that kind of thing. Or leaving out the measurements that skew the average in a direction you don't want to go. That last is closest to what I'm referring to, but it's on the other side of the line because it's labeled as just being cooling degree days. However, the "lawyer" for the opposing argument is also perfectly free to point out the omission in making his/her case, as I am doing.

BTW, it's sad how people take the comparison to lawyers as a grave insult. The bar association holds attorneys to a very high standard of honesty. Didn't Bill Clinton get disbarred, for instance?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #663  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:16 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookkeeper View Post
You are overlooking one of the effects warmer winters will likely have in your area. Ice storms can be more devastating than heating bills, especially if your furnace isn't running due to widespread power outages.

It's a good point: I've experienced such: one time the furnace was out for weeks in a place I rented.

But this is what I'm talking about: let's just get all the stuff out there, put it up for consideration. Or at least not get mad if you put out the stuff you want, but someone else points out the stuff that's missing.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #664  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:16 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Let's have some respect for the English language here. "Doctoring data" would be like actually editing a dataset, tampering with measuring equipment, that kind of thing. Or leaving out the measurements that skew the average in a direction you don't want to go. That last is closest to what I'm referring to, but it's on the other side of the line because it's labeled as just being cooling degree days. However, the "lawyer" for the opposing argument is also perfectly free to point out the omission in making his/her case, as I am doing.
Yeah, they're not doing that thing you seem to think they're doing.

Quote:
BTW, it's sad how people take the comparison to lawyers as a grave insult. The bar association holds attorneys to a very high standard of honesty. Didn't Bill Clinton get disbarred, for instance?
Technically no: he was only temporarily suspended in Arkansas, and he resigned from the Supreme Court bar before the proposed disbarment there went through. Not sure why this is relevant, but there you go.
  #665  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:24 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
BTW, it's sad how people take the comparison to lawyers as a grave insult. The bar association holds attorneys to a very high standard of honesty.
Lawyers are salesmen, scientists are finders of fact. The entire purpose of science is to separate the real from the not-real, to transition from a state of ignorance to knowledge.

That isn't a lawyer's job. They are not finders of fact, they do not bring our society to a higher state of understanding, they argue points of law, for a client who is paying them to make a specific argument. A scientist who does that isn't being a scientist.
  #666  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:40 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Some lawyers (think ACLU, labor lawyers, etc.) aren't as mercenary as you describe. That's more what I had in mind.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 01-24-2019 at 09:41 AM.
  #667  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:43 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Let's have some respect for the English language here. "Doctoring data" would be like actually editing a dataset, tampering with measuring equipment, that kind of thing. Or leaving out the measurements that skew the average in a direction you don't want to go. That last is closest to what I'm referring to, but it's on the other side of the line because it's labeled as just being cooling degree days. However, the "lawyer" for the opposing argument is also perfectly free to point out the omission in making his/her case, as I am doing.

BTW, it's sad how people take the comparison to lawyers as a grave insult. The bar association holds attorneys to a very high standard of honesty. Didn't Bill Clinton get disbarred, for instance?
Well, lets see what the experts said about the ones that "skewed" the results the other way:

Editors at the Science journal that published the contrarian research by Soon and Baliunas that proposed that most climate scientists were doing that skewing found after review that Soon and Bailunas got it grossly wrong

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-soon-fallacy/

And the editors of the journal the research of Soon and Bailunas was published at resigned in disgrace for not being so diligent in their review of the research by Soon and Bailunas. Unfortunately, it was too late to prevent the Republican congress to use that tainted research to ignore what the overwhelming number of experts said about the issue.

Later, it was found that Soon had received $1.25 million in funding from energy companies over a period of 14 years, and that he "forgot" to report that funding.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soon_a...as_controversy

Not a surprise really, but as noticed already, even here at the SDMB that was noticed ages ago.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-24-2019 at 09:48 AM.
  #668  
Old 01-24-2019, 09:52 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
GIGO, I know you are ESL, but do you have the idiom "straw man" in your native language? That's what these scientists you are tearing down are, since no one has cited them AFAICR.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #669  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:06 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,032
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Some lawyers (think ACLU, labor lawyers, etc.) aren't as mercenary as you describe. That's more what I had in mind.
I'm going to pull two quotes from the Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (NY)


Quote:
The professional judgment of a lawyer should be exercised, within the bounds of the law, solely for the benefit of the client and free of compromising influences and loyalties. Neither the lawyer's personal interests, the interests of other clients, nor the desires of third persons should be permitted to dilute the lawyer's loyalty to the client.


The duty of a lawyer, both to the client and to the legal system, is to represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law, which includes Disciplinary Rules and enforceable professional regulations.
These are lines from Canons 5 & 7 of the code.

Lawyers, whatever lawyer it is, has a responsibility to their client, to advocate solely for the benefit of the client, and to represent that client zealously. Scientists do not have "clients", they should not be loyal or zealous regarding a particular side of an issue, they should go where the data takes them.
  #670  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:21 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
GIGO, I know you are ESL, but do you have the idiom "straw man" in your native language? That's what these scientists you are tearing down are, since no one has cited them AFAICR.
They were one of the main sources used by many denier groups to declare that there is "evidence" of that "skewing" going on by most climate scientists. If that is not a basis for your point about the skewing, one then has to conclude that you are using an even bigger argument from ignorance.

It is worse IMHO because it would had been not much of a problem to just declare that you got that mistaken view from questionable sources that should be removed from your bookmarks or de-friend a few guys from social media.

What I point out here is that you are even an ignorant about where the ideas come regarding the attempt of discrediting climate science by pointing at an assumed skewing. And then you also are an ignorant of who is funding the distribution of that misinformation.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-24-2019 at 10:24 AM.
  #671  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:39 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,318
So, back to the latest episode of Slack Thinking, where are we> Let's see, the usual couple of attempts at "No, you are", and "you just don't understand my genius", then onto your normal wibbling:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I acknowledged that the opposite is true in much of the developing world. Do you acknowledge that it IS the case in many of the places that are actually the ones being asked to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions?

Letís clarify, BTW, since there was also another comment I let slide by that used this ďfreezing to deathĒ vs. ďheat strokeĒ verbiage. This is about people dying due to excessive heat or excessive cold who otherwise would not. That does not mean only heat stroke and fatal hypothermia. It includes all kinds of diseases that people succumb to but would not have if the temperature were milder. This cannot be divined with certainty in each individual case, but is extrapolated from mortality statistics correlated with temperatures.
That freezing to death vs heat stroke "verbiage", as you put it, would be your specific (and demonstrably wrong) claim that "a lot more people will be saved from freezing to death than will die in heat waves". I'm glad you're now acknowledging that it was just bullshit, that's progress of a sort. Just a shame you try to prevaricate further by then implying that the only places being asked to cut emissions are ones which won't be dramatically impacted by climate change. You seem to be missing the part that the entire developed world is being asked to address this, including countries like India and China, who most certainly do have skin in the game if you look at projected impact from climate change

So maybe a half step forward in your thinking, followed by the predictable side step and back a bit. Hey ho, I'm patient, and schooling you was always going to be an open ended task. Onto the next piece of nonsense:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Scroll down to Figure 18.2 and the accompanying blue caption. Cooling degree days is one of the four choices for the map, as well as a helpful explanation in the caption that they are associated with ďan increase in energy use for air conditioningĒ. So...what about heating degree days? I guess they just plumb forgot! The makers of these reports always seem to have been so meticulous to craft something that looks extremely thorough, yet again and again they get absent-minded about representing the positive effects. Just a complete coincidence, Iím sure. Couldnít have anything to do with the fact that the people preparing the reports are keen to effect certain policies vis-a-vis CO2 emissions.
You mean the report that actually makes the very point you're claiming they missed ("A large range in seasonal air temperature causes energy demand for both heating and cooling, with the highest demand for winter heating. The demand for heating in major midwestern cities is typically five to seven times that for cooling") and makes a number of other observations about possible positives ("yields have a two in three chance of increasing early in this century due to CO2 fertilization",
"increased productivity of some crops due to higher temperatures, longer growing seasons, and elevated CO2 concentrations", etc)?

Well, you're consistent, I'll give you that. You don't read your own cites, but you don't bother to read other people's cites either.
  #672  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:49 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
GIGO, try to maybe run my posts through the translator again. I'm not signing on to any theory that climate scientists are skewing their data. I'm not claiming the warming isn't happening, isn't going to continue, or that human activity isn't responsible. I'm only pointing out that the people who prepare these reports, and the media outlets that report on them, present the data that lands on the "negative effects of climate change" ledger, and not the stuff that goes on the positive side. Then right wingers argue that it's not happening at all, and no one (in the media at least) brings up the positives of climate change that also should be weighed when deciding how far to go with mitigation efforts. That's what I'm doing.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #673  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:53 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Did I read that ENTIRE report? Obviously not, and it's absurd given the number of posts here to expect anyone to do that. This thread isn't my full time job.

So great: it's buried somewhere in the report. People skim reports and look at the colorful maps and charts. Why isn't it included in the map with the cooling degree days? And why do cooling degree days get exact numbers, but heating degree days only get a more general, non-quantified mention in the sentence you quoted?

ETA: And why are you such a purist that you cannot contain your umbrage at a fellow(?) Democrat who supports green energy, public transit, bikeshare, etc., but does not share your (or AOC's) sense of urgency about climate change? Do you think you can get anything you want by shrinking your tent to include only those who want to sign on to the maximalist approach?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 01-24-2019 at 10:56 AM.
  #674  
Old 01-24-2019, 10:59 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
GIGO, try to maybe run my posts through the translator again. I'm not signing on to any theory that climate scientists are skewing their data. I'm not claiming the warming isn't happening, isn't going to continue, or that human activity isn't responsible. I'm only pointing out that the people who prepare these reports, and the media outlets that report on them, present the data that lands on the "negative effects of climate change" ledger, and not the stuff that goes on the positive side. Then right wingers argue that it's not happening at all, and no one (in the media at least) brings up the positives of climate change that also should be weighed when deciding how far to go with mitigation efforts. That's what I'm doing.
Even more ignorance, a lot of the items reported as myths and the many, many times mentioned replies to them show that many of the deniers do use those already reported meager positives in an effort to discredit the science as a whole.

So, yes; the right wing, who are usually deniers, does mention those meager positives, a lot indeed.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-24-2019 at 11:00 AM.
  #675  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:01 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
ETA: And why are you such a purist that you cannot contain your umbrage at a fellow(?) Democrat who supports green energy, public transit, bikeshare, etc., but does not share your (or AOC's) sense of urgency about climate change? Do you think you can get anything you want by shrinking your tent to include only those who want to sign on to the maximalist approach?
An ignorant that agrees with me is still an ignorant.
  #676  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:02 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
But GIGO, this is your M.O. I have seen you do it over and over. You cite and quote people who haven't been mentioned in the thread, shoot them down, and declare victory. It's weak argumentation, in any language.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #677  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:09 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But GIGO, this is your M.O. I have seen you do it over and over. You cite and quote people who haven't been mentioned in the thread, shoot them down, and declare victory. It's weak argumentation, in any language.
Nope, it is clear that you are an ignorant of even the basics on this issue. And I'm talking also about how denier propaganda even gets to people that are on the left side of things.

Not a problem really if one wants to learn, but a problem when IMHO wants to press the argument that one is so smart that he or she thinks they are using a good argument when in reality it is an argument that comes manufactured from sources with an interest to mislead others.

I already noticed that you fell for it and other misleading points regarding climate change and the science of it elsewhere in the SDMB, meaning that once again you need to unfollow many sources that you are using or de-friend some guys that are really fiends.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-24-2019 at 11:12 AM.
  #678  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:14 AM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Did I read that ENTIRE report? Obviously not, and it's absurd given the number of posts here to expect anyone to do that. This thread isn't my full time job.
Didn't you learn anything from the last time your stupid ass tried to talk shit about something you didn't actually fucking read?
  #679  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:32 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
GIGO, try to maybe run my posts through the translator again. I'm not signing on to any theory that climate scientists are skewing their data. I'm not claiming the warming isn't happening, isn't going to continue, or that human activity isn't responsible. I'm only pointing out that the people who prepare these reports, and the media outlets that report on them, present the data that lands on the "negative effects of climate change" ledger, and not the stuff that goes on the positive side. Then right wingers argue that it's not happening at all, and no one (in the media at least) brings up the positives of climate change that also should be weighed when deciding how far to go with mitigation efforts. That's what I'm doing.
Yeah, and when oncologists give the "bad news", they only talk about the negative side of cancer. They don't talk about all the weight you will lose, or the money you will save on hair care.

That's what you are doing.
  #680  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:38 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986


GIGO, go to Google. Type "define climate denier". You will presumably get the same definition I just got:

"a person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring."

I don't reject that proposition. I agree with it. Therefore I am not a denier. Do you understand this now, or do I need to come up with even simpler words to explain it to you?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #681  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:41 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Did I read that ENTIRE report? Obviously not, and it's absurd given the number of posts here to expect anyone to do that. This thread isn't my full time job.

So great: it's buried somewhere in the report. People skim reports and look at the colorful maps and charts. Why isn't it included in the map with the cooling degree days? And why do cooling degree days get exact numbers, but heating degree days only get a more general, non-quantified mention in the sentence you quoted?

ETA: And why are you such a purist that you cannot contain your umbrage at a fellow(?) Democrat who supports green energy, public transit, bikeshare, etc., but does not share your (or AOC's) sense of urgency about climate change? Do you think you can get anything you want by shrinking your tent to include only those who want to sign on to the maximalist approach?
And two further interesting insights into Slacker:

1) Because he reckons he's a democrat, a green, a cyclist or whatever he thinks people should cut him slack for talking absolute bollocks on subjects related to the cause.

2) He does not believe he needs to actually read an article before pronouncing it to be biased or misleading. A quick skim is enough for him
  #682  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:46 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
Yeah, and when oncologists give the "bad news", they only talk about the negative side of cancer. They don't talk about all the weight you will lose, or the money you will save on hair care.

That's what you are doing.

Nope. That kind of hyperbole is good propaganda though.

Unlike untreated cancer, global warming will not (whatever AOC says) destroy humanity. In northern Europe, east Asia, and Australia (and almost certainly the northern U.S. and Canada as well) it will prevent more deaths than it causes.

There is an implicit premise in your analogy that the immediate pre-industrial temperatures on Earth were optimal, like the "Goldilocks zone" that Earth-like planets' orbits inhabit. But this is a very provincial view. Before the asteroid hit and all the volcanoes spewed forth, dinosaurs lived in Antarctica. When this world was much warmer and had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere than it does now, life was more abundant than it is in our time, with our deserts and icecaps and tundra.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 01-24-2019 at 11:46 AM.
  #683  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:48 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Still no explanation for why the map shows cooling degree days but not heating degree days.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #684  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:49 AM
Gary Kumquat Gary Kumquat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
That was fun, but I personally preferred his seminal:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
But Asgardians as space aliens was never even hinted at in the classic comics.
  #685  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:52 AM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post


GIGO, go to Google. Type "define climate denier". You will presumably get the same definition I just got:

"a person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring."

I don't reject that proposition. I agree with it. Therefore I am not a denier. Do you understand this now, or do I need to come up with even simpler words to explain it to you?
I don't see where GIGO says you are a climate denier. I see where he says that you are repeating already debunked claims made by deniers, but not where he says that you are one. Obviously, as you are looking forward to that couple degree increase in average temperature, you are not a climate change denier, you are a climate change enabler.
  #686  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:52 AM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post


GIGO, go to Google. Type "define climate denier". You will presumably get the same definition I just got:

"a person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring."

I don't reject that proposition. I agree with it. Therefore I am not a denier. Do you understand this now, or do I need to come up with even simpler words to explain it to you?
Now that is a straw man, read it for comprehension, I did not say that you are a denier, only that you fell for denier sources and points.

That you are aware of what needs to be done is not the same as knowing why one is doing that, of course it has to be noticed that while you claim to do the right things you do seem to swallow the denier talking point that scientists skew the results by pointing only at the bad things. Or like before (in another thread) by swallowing the denier point that scientists had predicted cooling in the 70's when that was the popular press that ignored that most scientific papers actually predicted that warming coming in the following decades.

On edit: k9bfriender shows also that your assumption that I have problems reading English is also mistaken. You have the problem.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-24-2019 at 11:56 AM.
  #687  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:52 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
It's telling that of all the stuff I've posted all over this board (and others: I'm SlackerInc all over the place), you're forced to resort to "He lacked encyclopedic knowledge of comic books and science fiction novels!"
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #688  
Old 01-24-2019, 11:56 AM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I don't see where GIGO says you are a climate denier. I see where he says that you are repeating already debunked claims made by deniers, but not where he says that you are one. Obviously, as you are looking forward to that couple degree increase in average temperature, you are not a climate change denier, you are a climate change enabler.

This is pretty disingenuous, given that GIGO has repeatedly accused me of falling for deniers' propaganda, when I can't remember even reading any deniers' propaganda. That strongly implies that I'm a denier.

But I do agree that your last sentence there is fairly stated. I will accept that mantle.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #689  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:00 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
It's telling that of all the stuff I've posted all over this board (and others: I'm SlackerInc all over the place), you're forced to resort to "He lacked encyclopedic knowledge of comic books and science fiction novels!"
You're right, I'm sorry. I should have gone with this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
A sadly naive choice of backpacking location by these Scandinavian women: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46632182

I would not take the risk of vacationing in a predominantly Muslim country, not even a relatively less violent one like Morocco. But if you do, at least stay in places where you have the protection of security forces nearby.
I still find it shameful that that didn't get your shitty racist ass a warning. This kind of straight-up bigotry has no place here.

So, wrenching the topic away from this troll's ridiculous ego, Hannity is now also running segments on AOC. And the results are just... comedy gold.

Last edited by Budget Player Cadet; 01-24-2019 at 12:02 PM.
  #690  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:06 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
This kind of straight-up bigotry has no place here.

Calling that "straight up bigotry" and saying I should have gotten a warning for saying it (in the Pit!) is just looney tunes political correctness on overdrive.,
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #691  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:12 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
Wow, Hannity's looking old. I guess I haven't seen him in a while.

I agree with AOC's sentiment there in the Colbert appearance, but she is using terrible framing in terms of political strategery, She should look at that viral video of Elizabeth Warren (with whom I have many problems, but her "explainer" there is not one of them) or even the way Warren Buffett frames it.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #692  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:13 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Nope. That kind of hyperbole is good propaganda though.
It's an excellent description.

That there are some very small upsides to massive downsides is what you are touting. You will be able to use your backyard for another day or two a year, while crops fail across the globe due to drought. Yay!
Quote:
Unlike untreated cancer, global warming will not (whatever AOC says) destroy humanity. In northern Europe, east Asia, and Australia (and almost certainly the northern U.S. and Canada as well) it will prevent more deaths than it causes.
Okay, first you were saying that fewer people would freeze to death, (and I looked, those were the words (verbiage) that *you* used), now you are saying that fewer will die? This is completely unsupported by anything I have ever seen. This needs a citation.

Please cite your claim that global warming will save more lives than it endangers.

You had a very small point (a stupid and irrelevant point) when you were limiting it to freezing to death vs heat stroke, but now that you have expanded it to overall, you have no leg to stand on.
Quote:
There is an implicit premise in your analogy that the immediate pre-industrial temperatures on Earth were optimal, like the "Goldilocks zone" that Earth-like planets' orbits inhabit. But this is a very provincial view. Before the asteroid hit and all the volcanoes spewed forth, dinosaurs lived in Antarctica. When this world was much warmer and had much higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere than it does now, life was more abundant than it is in our time, with our deserts and icecaps and tundra.
Are you unaware of plate tectonics as well as climate? Do you think that Antarctica was where it was 120 million years ago?

And I made no claim that this is a goldilocks zone, but, the claim that I will make is that everytime the climate has changed quickly in the past, mass extinctions followed. Your claim was not an implicit premise, it was an unfounded assumption on your part.

The climate is actually pretty nice right now. We developed in an interglacial period, with snow at the poles and well regulated temperatures. It enabled our species to find a niche where we could grow and thrive.

And life was not more abundant, not sure what you are trying to state here. Most of the proto continent was desert. Also, that life was animals who ate and foraged what they found around them. If things changed, they slowly adapted or they died. They were not farming, they were not building houses in flood zones, they were not needing disaster relief or turning into refugees when their homes were destroyed by natural disaster. When things turned bad, they just died. That is what you are wishing on the majority of the human race so that your backyard gets a slightly higher average winter temp.

And, finally, while it is true that a few hundred million years ago, CO2 was at similar levels to today, the sun was also substantially cooler than it is today.
  #693  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:18 PM
Budget Player Cadet's Avatar
Budget Player Cadet Budget Player Cadet is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,778
(Let's not indulge him any further, he can shit all over his own stupid thread.)

One pattern I'm seeing a lot with AOC is this:

- AOC says something mildly controversial but ultimately correct/harmless that's controversial for very stupid reasons
- Right-wing pundits and twitter folks absolutely lose their shit over it; often times mainstream media outlets make an ass of themselves over of it (for example).
- AOC turns around and points out just how ridiculous they're acting, as does basically every other person with half a brain.

Case in point:https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...cortez-ai-bias

AOC claims that AI can be racist:

Quote:
“Algorithms are still made by human beings, and those algorithms are still pegged to basic human assumptions,” she told writer Ta-Nehisi Coates at the annual MLK Now event. “They’re just automated assumptions. And if you don’t fix the bias, then you are just automating the bias.”
Stupid fuckwit from right-wing news acts like this is somehow ridiculous:

Quote:
Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claims that algorithms, which are driven by math, are racist
...And then the comments section fills up with experienced software engineers and the MIT Technical Review pointing out that, yes, in fact, she's absolutely right, AI can and often is racist, because the average of a biased dataset is going to be biased.

This seems to happen an awful lot. What is it about AOC that pulls out the absolute worst in idiots?
  #694  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:22 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is pretty disingenuous, given that GIGO has repeatedly accused me of falling for deniers' propaganda, when I can't remember even reading any deniers' propaganda.
Sorry, but that 'in 70's scientists predicted cooling, therefore Trump deserves a break for the stupid thing he said', is coming from a classic denier talking point.

You are just an ignorant of how that myth was made and distributed, with help from ignorant mainstream media too. And so it was the "skewing" made by climate science data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
That strongly implies that I'm a denier.
Wrong again, it only depends on what you show here and elsewhere what you learn or willfully refuse to learn from now on.
  #695  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:29 PM
SlackerInc SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 9,986
K9, I provided that cite upthread. I'm not going to go find it for you now.

GIGO, I don't mind being called a motherfucker, fuckwad, cretin, etc., etc., but you go too far when you characterize me as a Trump apologist. You will not find anyone who loathes that orange piece of shit more than I do.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #696  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:39 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is pretty disingenuous, given that GIGO has repeatedly accused me of falling for deniers' propaganda, when I can't remember even reading any deniers' propaganda. That strongly implies that I'm a denier.

But I do agree that your last sentence there is fairly stated. I will accept that mantle.
When you repeat claims that can be found on deniers websites, then accusing you of falling for the propaganda that they spew is not all that disingenuous. It is not implying that you are a denier, it is stating that you are gullible.

Can you say where you get your claims from? Where are you inspired? It is entirely possible that you are not following these particular people, but are following those who are following them.

Accepting the mantle of "climate change enabler" huh? Well, I thought you would take it as an insult, but then, most would consider paternalistic racist to be an insult as well.
  #697  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:41 PM
GIGObuster's Avatar
GIGObuster GIGObuster is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 28,338
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
K9, I provided that cite upthread. I'm not going to go find it for you now.

GIGO, I don't mind being called a motherfucker, fuckwad, cretin, etc., etc., but you go too far when you characterize me as a Trump apologist. You will not find anyone who loathes that orange piece of shit more than I do.
Well, then now know what kind of information Trump relies on. When you told us in a different thread that Trump was right regarding that 70's bit... well now you also know that Trump has the Mierdas touch regarding what he says about climate change that was predicted in the 70's. Virtually all sources he is relying on are ignorant sources and even plausible statements from the Orange-utan should be taken with a boulder size grain of salt.

Last edited by GIGObuster; 01-24-2019 at 12:42 PM.
  #698  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:45 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
K9, I provided that cite upthread. I'm not going to go find it for you now.
No, you cited a claim that only included the direct effects of the temperature, literally, freezing to death vs heatstroke.

You did not provide a cite that global warming would save more lives than it endangers.

Quote:
GIGO, I don't mind being called a motherfucker, fuckwad, cretin, etc., etc., but you go too far when you characterize me as a Trump apologist. You will not find anyone who loathes that orange piece of shit more than I do.
Okay, you motherfucking cretinous fuckwad, not only do you talk just like the trumpster fire ("You will not find anyone who...", one of his favorite turns of phrase is to praise himself at being less racist, or more accepting of..." ), but you lie like him too.

Now, the fact that you claim to loathe him should give you pause when you act just like him. And there is also the fact that you are carrying water for his policies, as well as lowering the level of discourse.

You may loathe him, but he thinks you are a great ally, and is quite happy with the work you are doing on his behalf.
  #699  
Old 01-24-2019, 12:49 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
This seems to happen an awful lot. What is it about AOC that pulls out the absolute worst in idiots?
She is just exactly the type of person who should "know her place", and they will fall all over themselves to try to put her in it.
  #700  
Old 01-24-2019, 01:00 PM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT JohnT is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet View Post
... REDACTED

This seems to happen an awful lot. What is it about AOC that pulls out the absolute worst in idiots?
They need a replacement villian now that the Obahillary beast is now out of power. It's really that simple.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017