Now who is being naive when confronted with certifiable guys that do get things wrong and never correct to get a narrative going?
Sorry, that " :smack: " was applied to Lomborg first, (Literary, there is a chart and cartoon in the RealClimate *** cite -figure 3- where Lomborg is shown how he got one very crucial bit about ocean rise wrong, and not acknowledging it now is one of the many tactics that he uses to mislead others into thinking that the climate change issue is a “really NBD” camp.)
If you had bothered to check the RealClimate cite and the early video you would had noticed the many misleading talking points Lomborg is involved with. Sure he has political and economic credentials **, but messes even that when he has to press the general idea of his and other lukewarm contrarians that we should not see this as a big deal.
Actually Lomborg is the poster child of guiding others into pipe dreams of complacency. Sure he gets things some bits right, but his repeated and never acknowledged errors that he makes in pursuit of his NBD message shows that he is what me and many others report: Just one of the late stage deniers that is only good by acknowledging the issue *, but a lousy one to follow as he is certifiably worse in his mistakes than Ocasio-Cortez is.
In fact years ago Lomborg was torn to pieces in a few early discussions about climate in the SDMB, as noted, **he is not being shredded for being an apostate, he was shredded for getting things wrong or for lying many times before. **
So, yeah, I will have to insist here on a very basic question: Who or what source told you to follow that misleader?
** Really, Lomborg’s background is in political science and some economics, he is not a climate scientist.
*** RealClimate BTW is made by real climate scientists.
You admit you’re a racist, but you reckon that’s ok because you think you’re racist in a good way. Yeah, you can get straight to fuck with that nonsense.
Still, some progress made. You’ve not tried to defend the fact that you think global warming is no big deal, and that colonialism wasn’t that bad.
So let’s get onto the one you want to try to wiggle out of. You’re “not adamant that we can’t have a universal health care entitlement here”. You just dismiss the Canada model out of hand, say that the UK model won’t work, and then go on to dismiss any other model on the ground that for some reason the US can’t possibly achieve the same economies of scale that everywhere that’s implemented it has achieved.
See, I’m trying to work out if this fallacy is more of a non sequitur (on the grounds that the person’s sexual preferences, nationality and diet have absolutely no fucking relevance here) or an ad hominem (as I’m guessing you’re trying to imply that the fact that he’s gay, Scandinavian and vegetarian make his argument more worthy. It’s a relatively little known fact that “to the person” fallacies don’t just mean negative traits)
Either way it’s complete fuckwittery, but what’s new there.
Gary, people have from time to time accused me of trying to make these Pit threads all about me. I always counter that I’m just responding to others who are flinging their shit at me like monkeys in a cage. Thank you for perfectly illustrating my point.
You really need to examine your priorities, in the age of Trump and McConnell (thankfully no longer of Ryan), when you relentlessly attack someone who always votes Democratic; who gives money (from his limited supply) every two years to the DCCC, DSCC, the state DFL, and to various individual Democrats running in competitive races; and who also volunteers for GOTV every two years, knocking on doors and calling people to exhort them to go to the polls and cast a DFL ballot. Someone who vociferously opposes virtually every GOP proposal or initiative. Seriously, Mark Shields is right once again about Democrats and circular firing squads. :smack:
Virtually every, other than ones dealing with healthcare, the environment, or racial equality. Those you rail against, but then, complain that people are disagreeing with you because you claim to be a democrat. It’s the usual cop-out for you. “How dare you criticize me for being a racist, I voted for Obama!” (I bet you would have voted for him a third time if you could have, amiright?)
But, you do seem to be enjoying having shit flung at you, so, as you are standing there, covered in shit, well, that means you’re winning?
Oh good, you’re back to “Hey I’m on your side really” as a defense.
As previously pointed out, ad hominem is no better a support for a position than it is a criticism. I could no more give a flying fuck about which party you reckon is yours, your donations, or your volunteering than I could about your nationality, sexuality or diet. You are, by your stated beliefs, a sniveling idiot with delusions of adequacy. If you want to prove otherwise, I suggest you do it by not hiding behind causes you think will make you look worthy.
More bullshit. Please cite the posts where I have supported “GOP proposal(s) or initiative(s)” “dealing with healthcare, the environment, or racial equality”. :dubious: (Hint for you: I didn’t say “I support all the proposals floated by people on the left wing of the Democratic Party”, only that I oppose virtually everything the GOP supports.)
Not really, and not with the same level of comprehension I can expect from the written word. If a written text contains a word I do not know, I can look it up easily. If a speech in English contains a word I don’t know, or some mumblings, I’m SOL.
I can read an amount of text equivalent to a 15 minute speech in about 2 minutes, so kiss my ass.
Yep, there is that, I have to add that I was not aware of Lomborg being gay or vegetarian, as you pointed out that is really meaningless for the matter at hand.
What it should be important is to be able to see who is propping up lukewarmers that mislead others and to check how do their peers see him. We can see that the real crickets come from the OP not wanting to reveal who told him that Lomborg was an important guy to defend and to ignore his (in generall) misleading efforts.
As we know, Lomborg is not a climate scientist or was an expert in the economics of the issue. So could one assume that close peers such as serious political and economical organizations would had, at least, a lukewarm opinion of Lomborg, no?
Oh dear…
From The London School of Economics and Political Science, news and commentary section in 2018.
Yeah, it speaks the volumes that I am not at your beck and call. Some of us have a life outside of here. I play around with you guys when I have time and am feeling a bit bored during the day, but I do not devote any more time here than I have to spend at this desk.
Your impatient post speaks volumes about your pathetic desperation for attention, and a belief that people care far more about what you say and think than anyone actually does.
The easiest way to do that would be to simply make a link to your user profile. You fight against Democratic proposals dealing with healthcare, the environment, and racial equality. If you are fighting against those then you are supporting the opposition. I’m not sure what is so hard for you to understand about that.
Global warming not being a big deal is a GOP position, and it is yours. UHC not being able to function in the US is a GOP position, and it is yours. Racism is a GOP position, and you support that.
Can you show a single post where you have supported the democratic position on any of these matters?
I already did exactly that, just upthread. :rolleyes:
:smack: Why do people keep comparing the speed of podcasts to that of reading? I listen to a lot of podcasts, but never at a time when I could read something. That time (again, while cooking, working out, or driving/biking/walking somewhere) is in competition with music, not with written text.
GIGO, there’s no conspiracy here despite your dark intimations. I honestly don’t know where exactly I heard about Lomborg, but it was in the mainstream media. Not from whatever dark corners you are implying.
Because, as I explained already, reading (especially reading electronic texts online) is the standard and most efficient way for people to access information that they want to analyze and/or debate accurately and in detail (especially via online forums).
Reading electronic versions of text on the internet is what you do when you want to be able quickly and accurately to quote or dispute or corroborate a particular statement in the text, to skim and cross-reference within the text, to check the documentation of statements within the text, to survey and understand the overall structure of the text, to connect parts of the text with visual/graphical interpretations of data, and so forth.
All of those things are far more time-consuming and cumbersome to do with an audio recording of a podcast, unless you’ve memorized the entire spoken text of the podcast verbatim (which in itself takes quite a bit of time for most people).
Then your ability to critically debate or analyze the content of the podcasts is limited to whatever fragments of it you are able to accurately remember after listening to it, while also being somewhat distracted by the requirements of cooking or exercising or traveling.
Unless, that is, you go back to the podcast recording, probably multiple times and with some kind of transcription device, and churn through it laboriously extracting all the relevant details that you missed or forgot from your original hearing of it.
(And thanks for putting in that work to transcribe part of the Pesca podcast, btw. Your transcription work is appreciated, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t particularly fast compared to reading a text that’s already in written form, and you most likely couldn’t combine it with cooking/working out/driving etc.)
For the nth time, we are comparing podcast-listening to reading in terms of their usefulness as a basis for informative debate and analysis. There is absolutely nothing wrong with you or anybody else liking to listen to an interesting podcast as an alternative to music while you’re otherwise occupied. But there is a whole lot wrong with you expecting other people to meaningfully discuss the content of the podcast based solely on (inevitably) incomplete and erroneous memories of having listened to it once.
TL;DR: Yes, you (generic “you”) certainly can listen to a podcast conveniently and efficiently as a one-off “infotainment” experience while busy with something else. But you can’t retain enough of the content of the podcast that way to make you capable of discussing its statements in an intelligent, informed and accurate manner.
I just don’t get podcasts. I’ve tried. After about 30-45 seconds, it starts to feel like I’m being lectured. And when I get lectured, I tune out very quickly.
That too. As I noted, even if you enjoy listening to informative exposition instead of reading it, listening is a far less efficient and less convenient way of accessing the information in usable form. And many people don’t even enjoy the listening experience in the first place.
You’re right: I guess that’s why podcasts are a tiny niche that will fade away soon enough. Oh, wait:
And those 78 million are disproportionately younger adults. If anyone digs up this thread in 20 or 30 years, you naysayers are going to look silly. Or at least like old-fogey sticks-in-the-mud.
Nice try at goalpost moving, but from what I can see the GOP position is that global warming is not really happening, or that if it is it’s just part of natural climate cycles–that it isn’t a result of human industrial activity, and therefore there is nothing we can do to change it. I strongly disagree with all of that, and I have said so repeatedly.
Nope, no crickets here. Indeed, I can show far more than a single post. Buckle in:
And here are some other various posts showing my Democratic bonafides:
No, in reality you still have to come clean, and not for the silly reason of “purity”, the teachable moment here is that you fell hook line and sinker for misleader. And it is very important for you and others to realize how propaganda has worked and continues to work to prop up guys that even fool mainstream media (although the big ones seem to fall less for people like him nowadays), of course for some media from the right it is clear that they love to hear the lies and let it percolate to a lot of people. The point here is that, like 538 did on their way of being one of the more accurate poll checkers, one has to also clean up one’s sources.
Right now you are like a guy that has a garden in trouble and thinks that the Potato Beetles passing by are helping making things better.
Crap, missed the edit window–but the quote that talks about teachers unions and ends with “pay.attention” was an error in cutting and pasting that I missed. Mea culpa, my apologies. The quote should properly end with “pay.”