What the fuck does any of this have to do with AOC or Medicare for All?
Seriously, someone PM a mod and get this thread renamed to “SlackerInc being a dumbass”.
Then again, there’s a bunch of threads that need that title, because people keep feeding him.
It’s just yet another reminder that SlackerInc is what can happen when women drink alcohol during pregnancy.
You use the same hyperbolic forms of false self praise as he does, “You will not find anyone who loathes that orange piece of shit more than I do”; vs. “I am the least racist person you have ever interviewed.”; “There’s nobody that has more respect for women than I do.”
Yeah, your self praise sounds like a raging trumpfire to me.
And you, like trump are against climate change mitigation policies. You are supporting him in this. That is not, apparently “carrying water”, as when I looked this phrase up, it actually means “forced by politics or pragmatism to endorse or promote a belief, individual, or organization that in reality one does not fully support.”, so I was incorrect on this.
You are not carrying water for trump, you are willing allying yourself with him.
So much for you not calling them liars, you just did.
Anyway, percentage is more important than absolute, in nearly any circumstance.
If we told you that your cooling bill will go up by 64%, and your heating bill will go down by 15%, that is what those mean. It is not misleading at all. Cooling is much more expensive than heating, and insulation keeps out the cold great, but does little for keeping out the heat.
You can look to your own utility bill to see whether it is beneficial, in terms of heating and cooling costs, to have a warmer planet. It may very well be, if you use electric heat in the winter, rather than gas or an efficient heat pump.
Your “catch” is not actually anything of use.
It comes from **Shodan **that thought that it would be a good idea to make fun of Ocasio Cortez getting to say something a tad exaggerated about climate change. Sure, one can say that she gets some bits wrong, but the overall view is a valid one:
That actually would be a flat out falsehood, if it were not for the fact that they put the info that you claim that they hid right there, for you to see. Not sure why you think it isn’t there.
Anyway, you also say “realize that cutting carbon emissions will raise their energy bills”, which is, once again, incorrect, as it wouldn’t raise their heating bills, it just wouldn’t lower them as much as it would if we increase CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions.
Should you point this out to your neighbors, and they ask you, “Well, how much will it increase my AC bill in the summer?” What do you reply?
‘The world is coming to an end in twelve years’ is “a tad exaggerated”. 
Regards,
Shodan
…Yeah, it is, as her direct clarification afterwards showed.
Also, it doesn’t bother you that SlackerInc is taking a huge fucking dump all over your thread?
And that is why I added “Sure, one can say that she gets some bits wrong, but the overall view is a valid one”
So, disregard Shodan…
When I was a smoker, I was told all sorts of stats as to how long I had to live unless I gave up my smoking.
Because there was some hyperbole in what they said, were they wrong that smoking was bad for me?
:rolleyes: It would raise their heating bills relative to where they would be if those steps are not taken. This is normally the way things are figured, for instance with the Congressional Budget Office. It’s actually usually Republicans who try to play the game you are playing, insisting that their proposed budget cuts in popular programs are not cuts at all because in strictly numerical year over year terms, the budget for line item X will still increase. But since it won’t increase as much as it was previously scheduled to, this reduction in the increase is considered a spending cut.
ETA:
Do you really think it was okay to exaggerate the risk because it’s all for a good cause?
Also “weird” (not really but it is if your view of the media is stupidly simplistic and you actually believe the stupid “liberal media” myth): the way fact-checkers are going after her. Again, if they had good reason to, there might be a good point here… But they really, really don’t. Just for example, here’s the respective Politifact Files of AOC and Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Notice something? Sarah Huckabee Sanders has been spewing lies for the administration for quite some time. AOC has just recently stepped up on the scene. Their files are the same length. Something is fucked here, right?
And some of these are a real fuckin’ stretch. Like the latest from the Washington Post, which is embarrassing for a number of reasons, not least of which that it hangs the statement “economic theory generally assumes” on a 14-year-old study by an anti-labor think tank. Fucking really. And it’s particularly funny, given that AOC saw it coming a mile away.
So mainstream outlets are flailing blindly in stupid ways. Fox news is repeating her agenda as though it was something to be afraid of rather than the reason she’s popular. What the hell is going on here? Am I missing the big picture? Is this working on people who aren’t from my generation? Because it all seems so dumb, y’know?
Not playing any games, but you have the stupidest rationalization I’ve heard in quite a while. You said specifically that slowing climate change would raise their bills. You didn’t qualify “relative to what they would be paying if we continued to spew greenhouse gasses into the air” you made up that rationalization post hoc.
Your comparison to republican budgeting fails on pretty much all counts, not only because that is not anything like what I am saying, but also because that actually isn’t how those budget cuts work either. but good job trying to tie me to them. I assume that you are desperate to do so as I showed that both your rhetoric and your policy positions are right in line with trump’s, and you though that you would take a similar shot back.
Well, once again like trump, you took a pathetic shot, and failed.
Do you dispute the line at the end, where it specifically states that although heating days will decrease, overall electric consumption will increase?
If you do, then whatever, you dispute the basic science, and there is simply no evidence that will ever convince you of anything that you have not already made your mind up about. If you do not dispute it, then you acknowledge that you will be paying more in utilities overall, so your “savings” for not having quite as long a winter will be more than offset by having to run more AC in the summer.
Run that by your neighbors. Make sure that they are completely aware of both the benefit and the cost of a warming climate, and see if they are onboard with you.
And, of course, along with these higher energy costs, will come higher food costs, as arable land dries out.
The “benefits” that you are touting are insignificant compared to the downsides, and that is just for you, locally. Pretty much anyone else in the world is going to have an even steeper disparity, though I’m not sure that the suffering of others fits into a column on your cost/benefit ratio.
As a scientist, no. People like yourself already make up lies about their research and accuse them of lying about it because you are not able to understand it. They have no motive to lie, and they would be breaking many standards if they were doing so.
As a person who is interested in reducing the harm someone does to themselves or others, I can think of many other things that would be far worse than exaggerating the timeline of harm. Like advocating that they keep smoking, because, even though lung cancer and other smoking related diseases are a horrible way to die, at least they don’t need to save for retirement. Oooh money saver!!!
The scientists have said that we have about 12 years to severely curb emissions, or bad things that are possibly avoidable now will become inevitable. That doesn’t mean that the world ends in 12 years, but that does mean that we have 12 years to prevent severe catastrophe that in many ways, and for many, many, many people, be considered to be the end of the world.
As exaggerations go, it’s not that big a one, especially as she clarified immediately after, and it would only be someone acting very disingenuously, and taking the one statement without the support of any others out of context as the entirety of her position and proposals to think that she actually was making that claim.
Of course, taking things our of context and acting disingenuously is Shodan’s MO, which is why this got brought up. He manages to convince people like you that that is all to the story, because you are not capable of the effort and thought it would take for you to actually check into the story yourself.
So, congrats Shodan, I didn’t think that anyone was stupid enough to fall for your games. SlackerInc here has proved me wrong on that.
Those are literally the same thing! What else would it be relative to? Is there a third option I’m not aware of? 
And do I accept their overall conclusion about electric bills? I don’t know: it’s not presented in a very “science-y” way, now, is it? :dubious:
A bit of a notorious deja vu there, that was one thing that was very similar to what contrarians used against the hockey stick graph, most made the “point” that there was fraud by Michael Mann because some claimed that Mann had not reported about the issues with some proxies in the last decades of the 20th century.
Only to find out that indeed the paper by Mann and others did mention the issue. :smack:
That was the least of the “the stupid, it burns” arguments used, the worst was that they got really mad because an early schematic that was used in an early IPCC report was superseded by the graphs from Mann and others in latest reports. It was like seeing guys complaining that progress in science should not happen if cherished ideas are reduced in value in the process, like how the little ice age or the medieval warming period were then found to be not as big as they appeared before in the past incomplete schematic.
Turns out my earlier tweeted weather forecast was a piker compared to what’s coming next:
Still time to buy low on land speculation up here for future housing development. Or medium-low: we already have a housing and construction boom.
Holy freaking shit are you a steamer or what? The climatologists are talking about a 2°F increase in global averages, so, by your insane logic, those coldest days will go from a scrote-shriveling -23° to an absolutely balmy -21°. Keep your head up in that warm moist place.
I think you got me. :o Touché. I was too happy to find “heating degree days” (which I’d never even heard of — shouldn’t the phrase have a hyphen or two?) to even wonder what the stats meant. :smack:
Please accept apologies and congratulations with appropriate levels of exuberance on both our parts.
(And add that pdf to the rapidly growing list of badly conceived webpages, many of which come from U.S. Government.)
Ooh, yeah, I’ve run into that crowd. Fucking Lamb et al fetishists who insist it’s a conspiracy because someone replaced a decades-old schematic of northern britain with more global, up-to-date data. This issue doesn’t bring out the brightest.
Manfully (or womanfully) admitted, even with the soupçon of snark stirred in to make it slightly piquant. 