Not involved in this argument, but the way for you to avoid having people nitpicking the stupid shit you say is to avoid saying stupid shit. Apparently, for you, this means not talking about climate change at all, because from what I can see you don’t have any non-stupid opinions.
Hope this helps, and you’re welcome.
That was very interesting, thank you. I note with not a little eagerness that the northern part of the state where I reside is going to warm more than the rest.
But the report is a perfect illustration of my complaint, that these agencies (when not controlled by right wing climate deniers) cherrypick the data to present only the negative effects. To show the projected increase in cooling degree days without any information on heating degree days (which will likely decrease more than the cooling degree days increase) is incredibly blatant. :dubious:
ETA: STILL butthurt, EE? You need to get over it and move on with your life.
I’m pretty sure I didn’t make you say all that stupid shit (though I will admit I’m enjoying it).
Fuck me, you really are absolutely incapable of reading your own cites. From your article:
You provide an article that shows that, since the 1860s agricultural technology and processes have improved, healthcare has improved, and poverty has decreased…and you think this somehow indicates that global warming will not increase famine?
But just to make it absolutely clear that you don’t read your own links, let’s just look at the conclusion:
From your own. Fucking. Cite.
In case you wondered why you never managed to graduate, I reckon I’ve got a pretty cast iron theory. You are seriously incapable of getting even the basics of logic right. This is not, as you would hope to dismiss it, “nitpicking”. This is pointing out that everyone of your premises and conclusions inevitably turns out to be wrong.
You would think someone who publicly made a fool of himself after previously engaging in similar trash talking would learn his lesson. But I guess that’s where the “fool” part comes into play.
Gary, it’s apparent that you and most posters here are severely blinkered by black-and-white thinking. If I don’t support Canadian-style single payer, I must prefer to leave people with no health coverage at all. If I object that the climate change debate is carried out between people who foolishly and obstinately deny it’s happening at all, and on the other side people who highlight only its negative effects, I must be claiming that climate change is an unmitigated boon to humanity. :smack:
Let’s see if you will answer if I pose it to you directly: why did that U.S. government report present a predicted increase in cooling degree days, but leave heating degree days out of the picture? Did they just forget? Or could it be that, as I keep saying, they are cherrypicking data to suit an agenda, rather than simply presenting ALL the data and letting policymakers and voters take it from there?
I am less than surprised that you should now try to stagger on without acknowledgement that your cite completely disagreed with your claim, and still pretending that “a lot more people will be saved from freezing to death than will die in heat waves” was merely you indicating that climate change doesn’t just have negative effects.
So, which government report is it that you now wish to cling to as evidence that people are skewing the facts? The one Wguy presented? If so, just what do you think they did?
I’m not sure that I’m interested in lessons on introspection from someone who spends his day making dumb arguments on the internet, and then being the last person in the room to realize it.
EE, “the last person in the room to realize it”? Seriously? Wow. Just a tad lacking in self-awareness, eh?
It did not. Not that you understand my claim, due to your black-and-white thinking.
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?
Let’s clarify, BTW, since there was also another comment I let slide by that used this “freezing to death” vs. “heat stroke” 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’s 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 “an increase in energy use for air conditioning”. So…what about heating degree days? I guess they just plumb forgot! :smack: 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, I’m sure. Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the people preparing the reports are keen to effect certain policies vis-a-vis CO2 emissions. :dubious:
…that certainly would be how a conspiracy theorist would look at it.
And today, in “Is SlackerInc that much of a dumb motherfucker”…
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.
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 “social problems”. 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 don’t mind that kind of thing if it’s 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 I’m not for investing a lot into this CO2 deal, so I’m standing up against it.
I still strongly support federal subsidies for solar and wind, mind you. So it’s 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.
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.
…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?
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.
…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?”
Jesus christ are you literally an FXMastermind sock?
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.
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.
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.