Recent interview with Eliot Jacobson

[mickeycrimm]

You really really love applying whataboutism. Incredible.

People that do that "hey, that's a whataboutism!" aren't to bright. When you point out a whataboutism you are yourself doing a whataboutism. You are, in effect, saying "Whatabout whataboutism?" So you are just as guilty as everyone else on doing whataboutisms.

But go ahead and keep using the whataboutism argument....if you want to look stupid. LOL

BTW, only libtards use the whataboutism argument. Why is that? Oh, that's right. They want to stifle debate on thier double standards.

[accountinquestion]

You really really love applying whataboutism. Incredible.

People that do that "hey, that's a whataboutism!" aren't to bright. When you point out a whataboutism you are yourself doing a whataboutism. You are, in effect, saying "Whatabout whataboutism?" So you are just as guilty as everyone else on doing whataboutisms.

But go ahead and keep using the whataboutism argument....if you want to look stupid. LOL

BTW, only libtards use the whataboutism argument. Why is that? Oh, that's right. They want to stifle debate on thier double standards.

Ok, then lets go with how you love false equivalency. lol.

What a point to make. As if that is somehow a particularly intelligent thing to say. You've said the exact same thing before when trying to defend your false equivalency.

And lol stifling debate. Bro, you completely didn't' address anything in the debate.

What people do when they engage in false equivalency is try to AVOID any debate from the start. They are in effect saying, "This has happened before somewhere somehow - therefore lets not debate it because nothing has changed.".

In general I rarely see the word "Whataboutism" used in a debate and I will refrain from it. We all know where it came from but it just fits you particularly well because of that.

PS Also - I barely even read Seedvalue's posts before I abort. Him and Garnabby. One track wonders and that isn't even BS.

[Gottlob1]

PS Also - I barely even read Seedvalue's posts before I abort. Him and Garnabby. One track wonders and that isn't even BS.

Oh, now I think that Seedvalue realized the same thing that I did, very early on with the gambling message boards, namely, that it's rather pointless to try to have any meanful or other conversations with the locals. Best to have fun, enjoy oneself, and, if appropriate, post up a bit of real, in theory, and, actual, in practice, proof here and there, but, let it at that.

[mickeycrimm]

You really really love applying whataboutism. Incredible.

People that do that "hey, that's a whataboutism!" aren't to bright. When you point out a whataboutism you are yourself doing a whataboutism. You are, in effect, saying "Whatabout whataboutism?" So you are just as guilty as everyone else on doing whataboutisms.

But go ahead and keep using the whataboutism argument....if you want to look stupid. LOL

BTW, only libtards use the whataboutism argument. Why is that? Oh, that's right. They want to stifle debate on thier double standards.

Ok, then lets go with how you love false equivalency. lol.

What a point to make. As if that is somehow a particularly intelligent thing to say. You've said the exact same thing before when trying to defend your false equivalency.

And lol stifling debate. Bro, you completely didn't' address anything in the debate.

What people do when they engage in false equivalency is try to AVOID any debate from the start. They are in effect saying, "This has happened before somewhere somehow - therefore lets not debate it because nothing has changed.".

In general I rarely see the word "Whataboutism" used in a debate and I will refrain from it. We all know where it came from but it just fits you particularly well because of that.

PS Also - I barely even read Seedvalue's posts before I abort. Him and Garnabby. One track wonders and that isn't even BS.

More psychobabble from you, LOL. I won't hold my breath until you come up with a coherent argument. You got caught in your own foolishness about whataboutism. You're just to low IQ to know you were saying "hey, whatabout whataboutism?" Well....whatabout it?

You revert to calling something a whataboutism like that is going to win an argument for you. It's not. It just makes you look stupid. Besides, you stole that argument from someone else because you are just as low IQ as they are.

Clean up your own whataboutisms before you bitch at others about it.

[mickeycrimm]

Is the earth warming or cooling? Depends on when you started measuring. The earth has cooled about 5 degrees celsius since the time of Jesus.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1676901842972712960

[accountinquestion]

People that do that "hey, that's a whataboutism!" aren't to bright. When you point out a whataboutism you are yourself doing a whataboutism. You are, in effect, saying "Whatabout whataboutism?" So you are just as guilty as everyone else on doing whataboutisms.

But go ahead and keep using the whataboutism argument....if you want to look stupid. LOL

BTW, only libtards use the whataboutism argument. Why is that? Oh, that's right. They want to stifle debate on thier double standards.

Ok, then lets go with how you love false equivalency. lol.

What a point to make. As if that is somehow a particularly intelligent thing to say. You've said the exact same thing before when trying to defend your false equivalency.

And lol stifling debate. Bro, you completely didn't' address anything in the debate.

What people do when they engage in false equivalency is try to AVOID any debate from the start. They are in effect saying, "This has happened before somewhere somehow - therefore lets not debate it because nothing has changed.".

In general I rarely see the word "Whataboutism" used in a debate and I will refrain from it. We all know where it came from but it just fits you particularly well because of that.

PS Also - I barely even read Seedvalue's posts before I abort. Him and Garnabby. One track wonders and that isn't even BS.

More psychobabble from you, LOL. I won't hold my breath until you come up with a coherent argument. You got caught in your own foolishness about whataboutism. You're just to low IQ to know you were saying "hey, whatabout whataboutism?" Well....whatabout it?

You revert to calling something a whataboutism like that is going to win an argument for you. It's not. It just makes you look stupid. Besides, you stole that argument from someone else because you are just as low IQ as they are.

Clean up your own whataboutisms before you bitch at others about it.

This FEELS like some argument with a kid in the 5th grade gifted and talented class.

You've totally given up on arguing about the subject and are going on about whataboutism far more than I have. I even said I'd quit using the term.

I guess maybe in your world discrediting via false equivalency is valid. It is more about you feeling right than being right.

This is like Kewl trying to dig his way out of his bullshit.

[accountinquestion]

Is the earth warming or cooling? Depends on when you started measuring. The earth has cooled about 5 degrees celsius since the time of Jesus.

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1676901842972712960

This guy is notable for these views and being in a distinct minority. I get that you independent thinker types might think that is great but reality is he's far more likely to just be a nut. He has worked for miners. Miners love to deny this stuff.

Anyway, regardless of the above - I would like to see why he believes it has cooled 5 degrees Celsius since the time of jesus.

That is 9 degrees in American temperature. (That is called Fahrenheit vs Celsius - which is the international standard.) If you think the world has had a 9 degree fluctuation in temperature in the past 2000 years .. not sure what to tell you. It'd be lovely to know why this guy believes this. How it was measured and so forth but hey it makes a perfect sound bite for those who search out what they wish to believe vs search out the truth.

[accountinquestion]

https://pastglobalchanges.org/scienc...-network/intro seems like a good source for the data but they don't readily lay it out over the 2000 years without me spending some time researching their data.

This place seems far far far more believable than this 1 guy being interviewed. Maybe one evening I'll be bored enough to pour through it and see what they estimate the temperature difference to be. One thing I did see is how much temperature lowers after volcanic activity. While that is widely known even amongst us lay people it was also the one striking thing in the graph I saw. Unfortunately the graph only went back to like 800 AD.

See Mick? This is what an actual debate should be in my world. Trying to find the truth. It seems I'm far more open to investigating the claims of others.. but I guess the difference is somem of us search for the truth and some of us search to be validated.

[mickeycrimm]

https://pastglobalchanges.org/scienc...-network/intro seems like a good source for the data but they don't readily lay it out over the 2000 years without me spending some time researching their data.

This place seems far far far more believable than this 1 guy being interviewed. Maybe one evening I'll be bored enough to pour through it and see what they estimate the temperature difference to be. One thing I did see is how much temperature lowers after volcanic activity. While that is widely known even amongst us lay people it was also the one striking thing in the graph I saw. Unfortunately the graph only went back to like 800 AD.

See Mick? This is what an actual debate should be in my world. Trying to find the truth. It seems I'm far more open to investigating the claims of others.. but I guess the difference is somem of us search for the truth and some of us search to be validated.

You can try all you want but you can't cover up being an idiot.

[mickeycrimm]

Ok, then lets go with how you love false equivalency. lol.

What a point to make. As if that is somehow a particularly intelligent thing to say. You've said the exact same thing before when trying to defend your false equivalency.

And lol stifling debate. Bro, you completely didn't' address anything in the debate.

What people do when they engage in false equivalency is try to AVOID any debate from the start. They are in effect saying, "This has happened before somewhere somehow - therefore lets not debate it because nothing has changed.".

In general I rarely see the word "Whataboutism" used in a debate and I will refrain from it. We all know where it came from but it just fits you particularly well because of that.

PS Also - I barely even read Seedvalue's posts before I abort. Him and Garnabby. One track wonders and that isn't even BS.

More psychobabble from you, LOL. I won't hold my breath until you come up with a coherent argument. You got caught in your own foolishness about whataboutism. You're just to low IQ to know you were saying "hey, whatabout whataboutism?" Well....whatabout it?

You revert to calling something a whataboutism like that is going to win an argument for you. It's not. It just makes you look stupid. Besides, you stole that argument from someone else because you are just as low IQ as they are.

Clean up your own whataboutisms before you bitch at others about it.

This FEELS like some argument with a kid in the 5th grade gifted and talented class.

You've totally given up on arguing about the subject and are going on about whataboutism far more than I have. I even said I'd quit using the term.

I guess maybe in your world discrediting via false equivalency is valid. It is more about you feeling right than being right.

This is like Kewl trying to dig his way out of his bullshit.

I have to explain things to you like you're a 3rd grader.

[accountinquestion]

[Half Smoke]

.
the linked article from Wiki provides a survey of scientists' views on climate change

of course, anybody who wants to can claim that Wiki is biased and is deliberately putting out false info

it's a real shame that this has become a political issue - it really shouldn't be - it's become a way for righties to say that MSM and other sources such as scientists are full of shit

so here we go - here are the opinions of full of shit scientists (full of shit per righties)



from wiki:



" "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies. A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.


in 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analyzed a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.

James L. Powell analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming

Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming."




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

[accountinquestion]

.
the linked article from Wiki provides a survey of scientists' views on climate change

of course, anybody who wants to can claim that Wiki is biased and is deliberately putting out false info

it's a real shame that this has become a political issue - it really shouldn't be - it's become a way for righties to say that MSM and other sources such as scientists are full of shit

so here we go - here are the opinions of full of shit scientists (full of shit per righties)



from wiki:



" "the finding of 97% consensus [that humans are causing recent global warming] in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies. A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%, and a 2021 study found that consensus exceeded 99%.


in 2021, Mark Lynas et al assessed studies published between 2012 and 2020. They found over 80,000 studies. They analyzed a random subset of 3000. Four of these were skeptical of the human cause of climate change, 845 were endorsing the human cause perspective at different levels, and 1869 were indifferent to the question. The authors estimated the proportion of papers not skeptical of the human cause as 99.85% (95% confidence limit 99.62%–99.96%). Excluding papers which took no position on the human cause led to an estimate of the proportion of consensus papers as 99.53% (95% confidence limit 98.80%–99.87%). They confirmed their numbers by explicitly looking for alternative hypotheses in the entire dataset, which resulted in 28 papers.

James L. Powell analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 (<0.2%) rejected anthropogenic global warming. This was a follow-up to an analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming

Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991 to 2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming."




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change

I'm going to be positive here in the only way I can.

I like your posts in the sports-betting thread. I wish Redietz would give us some actionable ideas. Keep up the good work.

[monet]

9:35 in the video/speech...

When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water. -Kamala Harris- 2023

[accountinquestion]

9:35 in the video/speech...

When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water. -Kamala Harris- 2023

Lol. Well she's kinda an idiot. THe red part is the only thing she got particularly right.

Now you can read into it that the guberment is coming to get you if you want ..

On the other hand - Mr electric car himself Elon says there are no issues with overpopulation but hes been busy fixing Twitter so what does he know?

The reality is people are just another animal. We can find countless examples of animals overpopulating their environment and their population subsequently collapsing. You might want to think you're a special little snowflake but you're not. You're not. You're just another animal.

[mickeycrimm]

n

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...t-break-record

[accountinquestion]

n

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...t-break-record

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1680378004650729472

Sigh.

[mickeycrimm]

n

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...t-break-record

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1680378004650729472

Sigh.

Neither the Las Vegas or Death Valley record was broken. Just the 100 days below 100 degrees record was broken.

[accountinquestion]

n

https://pokerfraudalert.com/forum/sh...t-break-record

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/#!/x/status/1680378004650729472

Sigh.

Neither the Las Vegas or Death Valley record was broken. Just the 100 days below 100 degrees record was broken.

Yes, a weirdly made up record or the gold standard for temperature records. Historical highs and lows vs some random made up temperature threshold + timeframe. It is called cherrypicking but anyway that is not my point.

The main point is that coming off this cool timeframe, we're going into outliers that may or may not break records at places in NV. It sorta invalidates the cool period meaning much IMO.

It is these extreme outliers that will destroy ecosystems.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to see the 300 days of below 100 degrees but I'm not going to fool myself. There will always be some anti-stat you can use to go against the consensus and think you're a rebel thinker.

[accountinquestion]

You can look around international news and records are being broken all over the place at once. Sea temperature is rising. This appears to be the hottest periods in many many 10s of thousands of years (if not 100k+ years).

It isn't localized though thats the scary part.

Antartic (artic - I forget TBH) sea ice is starting to really really speed up its disappearance. Of course that means less reflective surfaces. Elliot said it is approaching 6 standard deviations. Now I won't claim to understand std devs that well as I study it then never use the concept again but I know 5.69 std devs is a hell of an unlikely occurrence.


Wake up dude. Stop being so thick-skulled. Just because you admit to the reality of it doesn't mean you have to do shit about it. SHeesh.