Ocasio-Cortez, a poor [wo]man’s Bernie

[SoCalCoug]

That's called anecdotal evidence and it isn't a valid line of reasoning.

She's not supporting a scientific paper. it's purely observational.

"Hey! Scientists have said that with climate change, we're going to see a lot of extreme weather. Kind of like we're seeing now! Let's do something before it's too late!"

"No way! She's an idiot! Climate change isn't real! Well, it's real but we're not contributing to it! Well, we're contributing to it, but there's nothing we can do about it! Well, there's stuff we could have done about it, but now it's too late!"

Are we all the way to that last part now?

[SoCalCoug]

Dig up her green new deal outline from a few months back. She still hasn't provided any real details (I doubt she will), but I dont know how anyone can read that outline and think AOC has anything more than a 4th grade understanding of economics. I'd say she is like those grade school kids who whined to Diane Feinstein in her office, but the kids are probably smarter than AOC.

Well, there you have it. You've now convinced me she's an idiot.

[UVACoug]

Nobody is disputing that weather isn't climate. Nor did AOC claim otherwise.

Everyone seems to agree that warmer climate will result in more extreme weather events.
Nobody seems to be disputing that you cannot attribute a particular weather event to climate change.
But can you not notice what seems to be an increase in extreme weather events and say maybe we should be doing something before it becomes even worse?

Also, I see similar statements all the time about how AOC is "irrefutably stupid." But I also see a lot of what is claimed to be evidence of this to be (as here) misrepresentation of what she actually said, or simple disagreement with her political views (i.e., I don't agree with her position on this political issue, so she's stupid.") I'm sure someone has collected all this "irrefutable" proof of her stupidity somewhere?

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend last night. He was rightfully (IMO) mocking all the climate-change deniers that claim that above average snow-fall and cold temperatures disprove global warming. Then he, of course, continued to make up some convoluted theory about how melting ice caps were allowing cold air to move further south, which was causing extreme weather phenomenons. He qualified his theory by saying that he "didn't really understand the science" but that it was obvious that extreme weather was being caused by global warming. The truth is that there are really no legitimate studies, whatsoever, linking extreme weather to climate change. So no ... everyone does NOT agree that warming temperatures causes extreme weather. At least scientists don't agree with that. I think there is plenty of evidence that global warming is something that is real and needs to be addressed by policy, but claiming that "everyone agrees" with something that isn't true doesn't really advance that cause. To the contrary, I just exacerbates the political conflict that obstructs the adoption of sensible policy. If you re really interested in "following science," then claiming that any weather event is evidence of global warming just doesn't make sense.

[SoCalCoug]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a good friend last night. He was rightfully (IMO) mocking all the climate-change deniers that claim that above average snow-fall and cold temperatures disprove global warming. Then he, of course, continued to make up some convoluted theory about how melting ice caps were allowing cold air to move further south, which was causing extreme weather phenomenons. He qualified his theory by saying that he "didn't really understand the science" but that it was obvious that extreme weather was being caused by global warming. The truth is that there are really no legitimate studies, whatsoever, linking extreme weather to climate change. So no ... everyone does NOT agree that warming temperatures causes extreme weather. At least scientists don't agree with that. I think there is plenty of evidence that global warming is something that is real and needs to be addressed by policy, but claiming that "everyone agrees" with something that isn't true doesn't really advance that cause. To the contrary, I just exacerbates the political conflict that obstructs the adoption of sensible policy. If you re really interested in "following science," then claiming that any weather event is evidence of global warming just doesn't make sense.

Okay, I take it back. Apparently there is nothing related to climate change on which "everyone" agrees.

One quibble: I have never claimed that that any weather is "evidence" of climate change. Some (apparently not all) scientists have projected more extreme weather events to occur as the overall climate becomes warm. Observing that there may be an extreme weather event is merely a data point. Not "evidence."

[falafel]

Well, there you have it. You've now convinced me she's an idiot.

Why, did you dig it up?

[Uncle Ted]

Nobody is disputing that weather isn't climate. Nor did AOC claim otherwise.

Everyone seems to agree that warmer climate will result in more extreme weather events.
Nobody seems to be disputing that you cannot attribute a particular weather event to climate change.
But can you not notice what seems to be an increase in extreme weather events and say maybe we should be doing something before it becomes even worse?

Also, I see similar statements all the time about how AOC is "irrefutably stupid." But I also see a lot of what is claimed to be evidence of this to be (as here) misrepresentation of what she actually said, or simple disagreement with her political views (i.e., I don't agree with her position on this political issue, so she's stupid.") I'm sure someone has collected all this "irrefutable" proof of her stupidity somewhere?

AOC is stupid because she is always blaming climate change on the republicans when only 1.6% of the scientists agree that humans are the problem. Of course, maybe she is implying that the GOP'ers are not human.

'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
[...]
Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#756ee5623f9f

I blame the amazon rain forests and all the cow farts. We should get rid of both! The guy that comes up with fartless cows is going to be rich.

[Jeff Lebowski]

AOC is stupid because she is always blaming climate change on the republicans when only 1.6% of the scientists agree that humans are the problem. Of course, maybe she is implying that the GOP'ers are not human.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#756ee5623f9f

I blame the amazon rain forests and all the cow farts. We should get rid of both! The guy that comes up with fartless cows is going to be rich.

Come on, Ted. Quoting junk like that makes you look like an anti-vaxxer.

[Uncle Ted]

Come on, Ted. Quoting junk like that makes you look like an anti-vaxxer.

No, I am all for vaccinations... especially if they make cows fartless.

[Uncle Ted]

It is seems that Speaker Pelosi is getting sick of all of AOC's tweet bitching:

Embedded Tweet

[Omaha 680]

Well, there you have it. You've now convinced me she's an idiot.

I cant figure out if you are being sarcastic here or not. My comment was sincere. If you haven't read her green new deal outline you need to. I'd like to know if you think there is a shred of serious, practical policy proposals in there.

While I think she is an economic illiterate, I admit AOC is great at presenting a certain image and great at ramping up emotion on social media to forward her causes. I think this cycle may help prove if her Twitter armies actually reflect general public sentiment or if it is smoke and mirrors. I have my doubts. She reminds me of Anthony Weiner before the sexting scandals. He was a hero in New York for taking radical positions and casting the other side as evil. But for that reason he was never going to be electable on a presidential ticket.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

[UVACoug]

Ocasio-Cortez, a poor [wo]man’s Bernie

Okay, I take it back. Apparently there is nothing related to climate change on which "everyone" agrees.

One quibble: I have never claimed that that any weather is "evidence" of climate change. Some (apparently not all) scientists have projected more extreme weather events to occur as the overall climate becomes warm. Observing that there may be an extreme weather event is merely a data point. Not "evidence."

I'll take your word for it that there are legitimate, peer-reviewed studies that predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. That sounds right to me. But pointing to any one extreme weather event, which is exactly what AOC was doing, doesn't show anything at all. You're right that its a "data point," but its a "data point" that means nothing outside of the context of other data points. Are there studies showing that there has been a pattern of increased and more severe weather events in recent years that can be linked to global warming? I'm not aware of any, but they may be out there.

When someone like AOC points to a single event and claims it proves global warming, she has no scientific basis for doing so. She is engaging in political speech that is no different than those that claim cold weather disproves global warming.

[wapiti]

She's not supporting a scientific paper. it's purely observational.

"Hey! Scientists have said that with climate change, we're going to see a lot of extreme weather. Kind of like we're seeing now! Let's do something before it's too late!"

"No way! She's an idiot! Climate change isn't real! Well, it's real but we're not contributing to it! Well, we're contributing to it, but there's nothing we can do about it! Well, there's stuff we could have done about it, but now it's too late!"

Are we all the way to that last part now?

No.

[SoCalCoug]

I cant figure out if you are being sarcastic here or not. My comment was sincere. If you haven't read her green new deal outline you need to. I'd like to know if you think there is a shred of serious, practical policy proposals in there.

While I think she is an economic illiterate, I admit AOC is great at presenting a certain image and great at ramping up emotion on social media to forward her causes. I think this cycle may help prove if her Twitter armies actually reflect general public sentiment or if it is smoke and mirrors. I have my doubts. She reminds me of Anthony Weiner before the sexting scandals. He was a hero in New York for taking radical positions and casting the other side as evil. But for that reason he was never going to be electable on a presidential ticket.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

"Look at it. Just look at it! You just have to look at it to know she's stupid!"

Is it an overreach? Sure, it probably is. It's certainly impossible under a Republican government. I see it more as aspirational - a series of goals that even if unreachable, provide something to aim for.

I ask this question over and over, and I never get a clear answer. What, precisely, has AOC said that indicates she's stupid. I have never gotten an answer other than, "Well, it's obvious if you look at what she says."

If true, it should be a concept capable of being identified and explained.

It mostly seems to be people saying, "She's stupid because her politics are stupid." Well, I suppose many truly believe that. Are they right? They sure seem to think so.

[SoCalCoug]

I'll take your word for it that there are legitimate, peer-reviewed studies that predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. That sounds right to me. But pointing to any one extreme weather event, which is exactly what AOC was doing, doesn't show anything at all. You're right that its a "data point," but its a "data point" that means nothing outside of the context of other data points. Are there studies showing that there has been a pattern of increased and more severe weather events in recent years that can be linked to global warming? I'm not aware of any, but they may be out there.

When someone like AOC points to a single event and claims it proves global warming, she has no scientific basis for doing so. She is engaging in political speech that is no different than those that claim cold weather disproves global warming.

My point is, that is not what she's doing. She's not pointing to a "single event" to "prove" global warming. She's beyond that, as are most (other than middle east and China) who are not American Republicans. She's pointing out that scientists have warned that as the global temperatures rise, we'll see (among many other warning signs) more extreme weather events. She's observing that they're already starting, as predicted. Maybe we'd better do something.

Allow me a religious analogy. I'm sure most LDS people have been taught in Sunday School the various signs that will precede the Second Coming. (Here's a link: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/...oming?lang=eng ) The coming forth of the Book of Mormon is one of those. Does the coming forth of the Book of Mormon "prove" that the Second Coming is true and will happen? No. it's s sign to those who accept that it will happen and are waiting for it.

AOC is merely pointing out one of the predicted signs of the coming of global climate change. she is not trying to claim it "proves" global warning.

[All-American]

"Look at it. Just look at it! You just have to look at it to know she's stupid!"

Is it an overreach? Sure, it probably is. It's certainly impossible under a Republican government. I see it more as aspirational - a series of goals that even if unreachable, provide something to aim for.

I ask this question over and over, and I never get a clear answer. What, precisely, has AOC said that indicates she's stupid. I have never gotten an answer other than, "Well, it's obvious if you look at what she says."

If true, it should be a concept capable of being identified and explained.

It mostly seems to be people saying, "She's stupid because her politics are stupid." Well, I suppose many truly believe that. Are they right? They sure seem to think so.

Seems to me what a person says is a pretty good measure of whether or not they are stupid.