And two further interesting insights into Slacker:
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.
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
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.
Still no explanation for why the map shows cooling degree days but not heating degree days.
That was fun, but I personally preferred his seminal:
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.
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.
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!” 
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.
You’re right, I’m sorry. I should have gone with this one:
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.
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., :rolleyes:
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.
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!
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.
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, CO[sub]2[/sub] was at similar levels to today, the sun was also substantially cooler than it is today.
(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:
Case in point:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez says AI can be biased. She’s right. - Vox
AOC claims that AI can be racist:
Stupid fuckwit from right-wing news acts like this is somehow ridiculous:
…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?
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.
Wrong again, it only depends on what you show here and elsewhere what you learn or willfully refuse to learn from now on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They need a replacement villian now that the Obahillary beast is now out of power. It’s really that simple.