Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Rants About Socialism and the End of the World

a reply to: neo96

What a disingenuous graph.

What's the comparison of non-publishing scientists compared to publishing scientists?

If 97 of 100 non-publishing scientists don't believe in climate change but 970,000 of 1,000,000 publishing scientists believe in it, then there's still a vast majority of scientists they have found climate change is a thing.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

The only thing disingenuous is trying to pass off the church of climatology as anything other than A CULT.

It's nothing more than blind faith because the 'preachers' have spoken.

a reply to: Krakatoa

As I said before. I'm in a good position. I just turned 31 and am in the middle of buying my first house.

According to the Boomers I should have done this a decade ago.

Both me and my fiancee are extremely hard workers and the only reason we're able to buy a house now is because we got extremely lucky.

Tell me, when were you able to buy your first house and was your significant other working at the same time as well?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Give me a break. This complaint is coming from a generation that was groomed to think nothing should ever go wrong and they would be given 2 unicorns and a pot of gold when they grew up just for being alive. Here's their participation trophy, so they don't feel left out and have their delicate feelz hurt.

Well posted!!

a reply to: neo96

So you have the data behind that graph?

Great! I would love to see it.

At first glance that graph looks like straight up propaganda. Which I know is something you claim to hate.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the world's leading atmospheric scientists, told a standing-room only audience at a briefing sponsored by the Cooler Heads Coalition in the U.S. Senate Environment Committee Room, that the IPCC process is driven by politics rather than science.

IPCC Report Criticized by One of Its Lead Authors

Princeton University researchers have found that the climate models scientists use to project future conditions on our planet underestimate the cooling effect that clouds have on a daily — and even hourly — basis, particularly over land.

The researchers report in the journal Nature Communications that models tend to factor in too much of the sun’s daily heat, which results in warmer, drier conditions than might actually occur. The researchers found that inaccuracies in accounting for the diurnal, or daily, cloud cycle did not seem to invalidate climate projections, but they did increase the margin of error for a crucial tool scientists use to understand how climate change will affect us.

Spotty coverage: Climate models underestimate cooling effect of daily cloud cycle

originally posted by: DAVID64
At least she is consistent.....she's always stupid.



Consistently stupid.

This is stupid for you? Thats desperate.

a reply to: AProudLefty

You implied that the Washington Examiner made up the portion about all existing buildings in America be subject to retrofitting, I showed you the actual resolution wording where that is clearly stated.

Now, do you have any comment on the fact that you were wrong and the resolution calls for all existing buildings in the U.S. to be upgraded?

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Krakatoa

As I said before. I'm in a good position. I just turned 31 and am in the middle of buying my first house.

According to the Boomers I should have done this a decade ago.

Both me and my fiancee are extremely hard workers and the only reason we're able to buy a house now is because we got extremely lucky.

Tell me, when were you able to buy your first house and was your significant other working at the same time as well?

I bought my first house 10 years ago at age 43...and yes, my spouse also works full time. Until that time we rented, and scrimped, did without, and worked 2nd or 3rd part time jobs and consignment sales of some of our possessions to get to that point.

Was it easy, heck no!
Did I get help from parents, NO! (my dad passed away and my mom was retired living on a fixed income, same with her mom & dad)
Did I have student loans? Heck yeah! It took me 15 years but I paid them off (total I owed was about $85,000.00).
Did I ever look to have my loans "forgiven" or whine about how life sucked? No. Because I was not raised to feel entitled to everything. I was raised that you worked for what you got, and did without like they did as kids during the depression!

a reply to: neo96

Millennials don't like to cook meat??

Never heard that one before!

originally posted by: blueman12
a reply to: neo96

Millennials don't like to cook meat??

Never heard that one before!

Not that, they don't like to even TOUCH the meat. The beef industry has developed new packaging to allow someone to open the package and slide the meat into the pan, etc... So you don't have to touch that icky meat.

SMFH

a reply to: neo96

I just go by what scientists say. Still not sure who is right. Why are you so sure?

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The Washington Examiner has been known to make up stuff. Why are you so upset that I question the source? Why are you so upset that I wanted a better source?
How can I be wrong if I never claimed that there's no such thing as upgrading buildings? As I have stated, it isn't any different from the 2009 stimulus. This is nothing new and nothing to be upset over since it has been done before. Besides nobody knows how it will be done (similar problems appeared in 2009)

a reply to: Krakatoa

Still seems exaggerated. How many millennials are scared to touch meat? One out of 20 maybe? Maybe it's b/c they were raised with processed pre-maid food.

I know vegan/vegetarian has increased a little in today's age. Maybe that affects the numbers too.

a reply to: AProudLefty

The Washington Examiner has been known to make up stuff. Why are you so upset that I question the source? Why are you so upset that I wanted a better source?

Probably because you only considered the source and not the merits of what was said. It's a fallacy.

a reply to: MadLad

And yet people here complain about CNN.

Go figure.

a reply to: AProudLefty

I'm not upset, I had already read the text of the actual resolution some time last week or before. It's not my fault you're uninformed on the NGD.

I presume you were referring to this article by the Examiner, but since you didn't link it in your post, I don't know for sure.

That particular article cites NPR which contains a draft of the resolution.

originally posted by: AProudLefty
a reply to: MadLad

And yet people here complain about CNN.

Go figure.

If you want to make stupid arguments because others do, be my guest. Just pointing it out.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I am sorry that asking questions to be more informative bugs you. I'll be more careful for you next time.


Anyway now that you've shown me, can we continue and discuss it or are you going to babble about me asking for a better source?

a reply to: MadLad

What stupid argument? What is wrong with asking for a better source? Is that not allowed on ATS anymore? What about deny ignorance?