Trump and Republicans are isolated on climate change

[homersapien 11,362]

One hell of a hoax, huh?

[DKW 86 7,419]

 

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Look, AOC did, in fact, say 12 years. She got that from a UN Paper. (What you "believe" in that head of yours is another matter.)

Are you saying that we are all going to die in 12 years then?

If not, then welcome to reality with the rest of us where AOC does, in fact, say crazy s*** from time to time. And she got that crazy s*** from a UN paper.

 

Let me say this one more time, Mr Science guy...AOC doesnt have a fricking clue what she reads nor what it means. She Read the IPCC Report, she did not understand one word of it, and she made up a crazy as hell talking point because SHE DOESNT UNDERSTAND A WORD OF IT. The rest of us can see that. That was what the article you didnt read or maybe cant understand said. One more time, AOC misread the IPCC report. She made up a comment based on her misunderstanding of the IPCC Report. You didnt say it. I didnt say it. The IPCC Report didnt say it. AOC didnt understand it and mis-stated it. 

[homersapien 11,362]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

 

Let me say this one more time, Mr Science guy...AOC doesnt have a fricking clue what she reads nor what it means. She Read the IPCC Report, she did not understand one word of it, and she made up a crazy as hell talking point because SHE DOESNT UNDERSTAND A WORD OF IT. The rest of us can see that. That was what the article you didnt read or maybe cant understand said. One more time, AOC misread the IPCC report. She made up a comment based on her misunderstanding of the IPCC Report. You didnt say it. I didnt say it. The IPCC Report didnt say it. AOC didnt understand it and mis-stated it. 

Is that supposed to be a clarification and apology for the confusing ambiguity inherent in your subject post? 

If so, it's sort of incoherent.  The bolded part sounds more like a rant. I don't know what you mean by "article" and I am not arguing AOC's understanding of the report.

You inferred her complete statement came from the IPCC report. All I am arguing is that the IPCC report didn't mention extinction at all.  AOC apparently misunderstood it.

Granted you only mentioned the "12 year part" in the first sentence, but your subsequent statements indicated you were talking about her complete statement, including the term "extinction". (See especially the second sentence in red.)

And the only thing I said to spark the below response was to say AOC misunderstood what the report said, which is true.

She got the 12 years right, but the IPCC paper said nothing about extinction.  "Extinction" is the key word here.  And that was my only point

 

So, I said AOC misunderstood the IPCC report and you responded (emphasis mine):

"Look, AOC did, in fact, say 12 years. She got that from a UN Paper. (What you "believe" in that head of yours is another matter.)

Are you saying that we are all going to die in 12 years then?

If not, then welcome to reality with the rest of us where AOC does, in fact, say crazy s*** from time to time. And she got that crazy s*** from a UN paper."

 

What an over-the top response to a post saying AOC didn't understand what the IPCC report said.   And you cannot even clarify your position without getting snarky and insulting.

David, you are just an unpleasant person who is apparently incapable of having a civil conversation, at least with me.  I should stop trying - and probably would if you weren't constantly misrepresenting my posts. So please start ignoring me and I will reciprocate.  Deal?

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

What an over-the top response to a post saying AOC didn't understand what the IPCC report said.   And you cannot even clarify your position without getting snarky and insulting.

David, you are just an unpleasant person who is apparently incapable of having a civil conversation, at least with me.  I should stop trying - and probably would if you weren't constantly misrepresenting my posts. So please start ignoring me and I will reciprocate.  Deal?

1

Bless your heart homey....You are such a manchild. The entire thing started with me posting two links you never read. 

1) Article one: "AOC got the crazy 12 years quote from IPCC Report."

2) The IPCC Report with the quote hilited. 

3) She added "extinction" on her own from misreading the Report.

I have explained this to you multiple times and yet you just cant comprehend. AOC added the extinction part to the quote. She didnt not understand the quote at all. 
I am beginning to think you cant comprehend anything.

I have never misrepresented a post of yours.

Quote

AOC doesnt have a fricking clue what she reads nor what it means. She Read the IPCC Report, she did not understand one word of it, and she made up a crazy as hell talking point because SHE DOESNT UNDERSTAND A WORD OF IT. The rest of us can see that. That was what the article you didnt read or maybe cant understand said. One more time, AOC misread the IPCC report. She made up a comment based on her misunderstanding of the IPCC Report. You didnt say it. I didnt say it. The IPCC Report didnt say it. AOC didnt understand it and mis-stated it. 

7

 

[homersapien 11,362]

17 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

Bless your heart homey....You are such a manchild. The entire thing started with me posting two links you never read. 

1) Article one: "AOC got the crazy 12 years quote from IPCC Report."

2) The IPCC Report with the quote hilited. 

3) She added "extinction" on her own from misreading the Report.

I have explained this to you multiple times and yet you just cant comprehend. AOC added the extinction part to the quote. She didnt not understand the quote at all. 
I am beginning to think you cant comprehend anything.

I have never misrepresented a post of yours.

 

Why did you ask if I thought "we would be dead in 12 years"?

Why did you take issue when all I said was the IPCC report didn't mention extinction?

You are just trying to be disagreeable.  You have misrepresented many of my posts. In fact it's typical.  And you always include the obligatory insult.   Always.  (See above.)

Please, ignore me from now on and I will return the favor.

[DKW 86 7,419]

As usual, you are overreacting. 

It was not you nor I that said the crazy stuff. I know you dont think we are going extinct. AOC was clearly mis-stating facts., 

[homersapien 11,362]

27 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

As usual, you are overreacting. 

It was not you nor I that said the crazy stuff. I know you dont think we are going extinct. AOC was clearly mis-stating facts., 

Nevertheless, I would prefer we ignore each other in the future. 

[autigeremt 6,598]

A. Climate Change is real

B. AOC is batshit crazy 

good day 

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, autigeremt said:

A. Climate Change is real

B. AOC is batshit crazy 

good day 

Exactly! Only took me 4 pages of crap with Homey for him to be able to see what every person on the board saw. 

[homersapien 11,362]

12 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Exactly! Only took me 4 pages of crap with Homey for him to be able to see what every person on the board saw. 

You implied the IPCC report said humans will be extinct in 12 years.

Apparently it takes you 4 pages to clarify what your really meant.

(Hint: Leave out the defensive weaseling and you could do it in one post.)

[DKW 86 7,419]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You implied the IPCC report said humans will be extinct in 12 years.

Apparently it takes you 4 pages to clarify what your really meant.

(Hint: Leave out the defensive weaseling and you could do it in one post.)

No, I never implied anything of the sort. I went 5 miles out of the way to say that AOC said that. Not the IPCC REPORT, not you, not me. She read the IPCC report and understood little of it. She misread one passage and we got crazy quote. Besides I wasn’t even the first source on this. My first post quoted two articles and the IPCC REPORT ITSELF.  It wasn’t even me on the first attempt. It was a recognized media source and the links to back it up. You are so hard up gnat straining to actually read anything and take the time to understand anything. You just want to slavishly defend the indefensible. The talking points, etc. 

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

No, I never implied anything of the sort. I went 5 miles out of the way to say that AOC said that. Not the IPCC REPORT, not you, not me. She read the IPCC report and understood little of it. She misread one passage and we got crazy quote. Besides I wasn’t even the first source on this. My first post quoted two articles and the IPCC REPORT ITSELF.  It wasn’t even me on the first attempt. It was a recognized media source and the links to back it up. You are so hard up gnat straining to actually read anything and take the time to understand anything. You just want to slavishly defend the indefensible. The talking points, etc. 

I posted the IPCC report didn't say what AOC said.  I said she misunderstood it.  (Go back and follow the narrative starting on page one.)

 

You responded (emphasis mine):

Look, AOC did, in fact, say 12 years. She got that from a UN Paper. (What you "believe" in that head of yours is another matter.)

Are you saying that we are all going to die in 12 years then? 

If not, then welcome to reality with the rest of us where AOC does, in fact, say crazy s*** from time to time. And she got that crazy s*** from a UN paper.

 

 

That certainly implies you were saying AOC got her statement from IPCC report.  (Especially the fourth sentence, in red.) 

If you didn't mean that you could have clarify with a simple clarification of what you actually meant and we'd be done. 

But no, you are so insecure you cannot do a simple clarification.  You have to deny, weasel and insult.  The irony is you look weaker by doing so.

I'm done with this.

[DKW 86 7,419]

And yet here you go one more time. I have done everything humanly possible to explain this to you. You are on one of your phony "I dont understand..." runs now. Some of the lighter weight intellects around here like to ask never ending questions when they have lost an argument. You, apparently, have chosen "I dont understand..." reposts of the same things that have been explained ad nauseum. I am now done with this. 

homey, if Jesus came down and explained it to you it wouldnt matter. This is just part of your very tired schtick. 

Quote

 

Look, AOC did, in fact, say 12 years. She got that from a UN Paper. 

Are you saying that we are all going to die in 12 years then? If not, then welcome to reality with the rest of us where AOC does, in fact, say crazy s*** from time to time. And she got that crazy s*** from a UN paper.

 

If you dont think we are all gonna die in 12 years, then you dont have a dog in the fight. The question was asked rhetorically & facetiously of you. I KNOW you dont think that way. Why is this so hard for you?

[jj3jordan 2,050]

1. Sudan Academy of Sciences
2. Sudanese National Academy of Science

Well heck Homer why didn't you say these guys were on board earlier. That changes everything!!

[homersapien 11,362]

13 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

1. Sudan Academy of Sciences
2. Sudanese National Academy of Science

Well heck Homer why didn't you say these guys were on board earlier. That changes everything!!

When I said "all", I meant "all".

Do you know anything about the Sudan Academy of Sciences?

Would you exclude them from the list?  If so, why?

 

[jj3jordan 2,050]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

When I said "all", I meant "all".

Do you know anything about the Sudan Academy of Sciences?

Would you exclude them from the list?  If so, why?

 

I'm sure they are awesome since their country is so advanced.

[homersapien 11,362]

20 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

I'm sure they are awesome since their country is so advanced.

What do you know about their scientists?

[jj3jordan 2,050]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

What do you know about their scientists?

They are not as smart as you.

[homersapien 11,362]

3 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

They are not as smart as you.

Stupid response.  I am sure they are at least as smart as I am.

Do you feel that way because they are black? 

[DKW 86 7,419]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Stupid response.  I am sure they are at least as smart as I am.

Do you feel that way because they are black? 

 

OMG...Really?

[homersapien 11,362]

20 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

OMG...Really?

Yes really.  Why is he disparaging a Sudanese scientific academy?

Does he think Sudan is just a "****hole" country that cannot produce scientists?

What's your theory?

[homersapien 11,362]

On 3/28/2019 at 9:39 PM, jj3jordan said:

I'm sure they are awesome since their country is so advanced.

Well, they are advanced enough for Auburn to employ a Sudanese who received his DVM from the University of Khartoum as a professor in the School of Veterinary Medicine, :

 

Mahmoud Mansour, DVM, PhD

Professor of Veterinary Anatomy

Department of Anatomy, Physiology and Pharmacology

Dr. Mansour joined the Auburn University College of Veterinary Medicine in 2006. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom (1990) and his DVM from the University of Khartoum, Sudan (1983). Dr. Mansour received post-doctoral training at Michigan State University where he was a recipient of Fulbright Scholarship (1995). He also received a research training course at the WHO headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland (1993). Dr. Mansour was a member of the faculty at Tuskegee University for several years before joining the faculty at Auburn University.

 

Imagine that.

Reckon he is as smart at you? 

[DKW 86 7,419]

Why are you so convinced that EVERY question or joke is racist? That's what i asked you. I never said a word about anyone's academics. Although I would ask some realistic questions about a govt that can fund Climate Reseach but cant feed its people nor police its pirates. 

[homersapien 11,362]

23 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Why are you so convinced that EVERY question or joke is racist? That's what i asked you. I never said a word about anyone's academics. Although I would ask some realistic questions about a govt that can fund Climate Reseach but cant feed its people nor police its pirates. 

Stop lying again. 

I certainly don't see "EVERY" question or joke as racist.  What BS.

Also, I didn't claim he was being racist by disparaging a scientific organization because they were in Sudan.  I asked him.  It's a reasonable question. He was laughing at the idea a Sudanese scientific organization should even been considered. Why?

And whatever problems Sudan may have has nothing to do with their scientific organizations, so drop the patronizing attitude by presuming to tell them what their priorities should be. Universities and scientists are important tools for solving their problems. (You are interested in them trying to solve their own problems aren't you?)

Having such an organization make a statement on AGW is not "funding climate research", which is another one of your typical misrepresentations.  It simply represents an acknowledgement by the scientists in that organization that climate change is going to make solving their problems even more difficult, which it will.

Here's a brief sampling of information on the impact of climate change in Sudan for your edification:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sudan+projected+climate+change+impact&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/climate-change-and-agriculture-sudan-impact-pathways-beyond-changes-mean-rainfall-and

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/index.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaba1b/pdf

https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/climate-change-adaptation-and-decision-making-sudan

 

 

 

[jj3jordan 2,050]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

Stop lying again. 

I certainly don't see "EVERY" question or joke as racist.  What BS.

Also, I didn't claim he was being racist by disparaging a scientific organization because they were in Sudan.  I asked him.  It's a reasonable question. He was laughing at the idea a Sudanese scientific organization should even been considered. Why?

And whatever problems Sudan may have has nothing to do with their scientific organizations, so drop the patronizing attitude by presuming to tell them what their priorities should be. Universities and scientists are important tools for solving their problems. (You are interested in them trying to solve their own problems aren't you?)

Having such an organization make a statement on AGW is not "funding climate research", which is another one of your typical misrepresentations.  It simply represents an acknowledgement by the scientists in that organization that climate change is going to make solving their problems even more difficult, which it will.

Here's a brief sampling of information on the impact of climate change in Sudan for your edification:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Sudan+projected+climate+change+impact&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

http://www.ifpri.org/publication/climate-change-and-agriculture-sudan-impact-pathways-beyond-changes-mean-rainfall-and

https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/07/africa/sudan-climate-change/index.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaba1b/pdf

https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/climate-change-adaptation-and-decision-making-sudan

 

 

 

Hypothetical for you homer. If your Sudanese scientist friends wrote a paper on the hoax that is climate change, would you change your mind?