olofscience

Also note that the graph is from Bjorn Lomborg, who claims he is an "environmentalist" despite only having an MA in political science. He's well known for his bullshit and is thoroughly discredited in the scientific community. Slim and brent regurgitate his arguments including the inconsistencies to the letter, not a single original argument from them really.

This is funny coming from you...or...are you speaking from experience?

That sucks, I was looking forward to having actual hoverboards. One day, hopefully.

That's blaming the victim - the campaign didn't fuck anything up, it's the white men who chose to boycott the brand then blamed it on the campaign who caused the losses. Brent loves doing that - "democrats opposed this thing, it's their fault the GOP then did this!!" I.e. the boycott is the direct cause of the financial losses and not the campaign. Sure, they did the boycott because of the campaign, but that's another discussion.

Arguing with that lefty in your head again?

So, is there any change in sea level since the ice age? (or more specifically, the last glacial period)

Brent has no idea though. He thought that the temperature anomaly graphs were absolute temperatures. When I asked him to predict this year's anomaly he didn't even know what it was. Just like Slim. Just like Rhys.

And sea levels are also rising, right? You've been very adamant that sea levels haven't been rising at all. You know when someone is lying, the first thing that goes is consistency. Time for some mental gymnastics!

First admit to record heat...then there's the backflip! 0/10 for intentional ignorance, and cherry picking. Did not stick the landing. Soon brent will be back saying there's no warming after all. He can't make his mind up.

So close to self awareness, yet so far...

No, he's doing impressive mental gymnastics and contortions...to avoid taking that next baby step.

So close to self-awareness, yet so far.

You don't know that. Because there's no consensus what those other factors even are. Because it's nowhere close to CERTAIN that the bill can take credit for that reduction. Canada also had a reduction and had no such bill. And as already mentioned, it had the unintended consequence of disproportionately incarcerating blacks. Nothing is certain, sure - especially if we don't address underlying social and economic factors. But the focus on guns is because they have a proven, statistical LINK to violent crime deaths stretching back decades, there are available comparisons with other similar countries (to remove differences in social and economic factors), and there is widespread consensus that reducing them will reduce gun crime. Guns are the (relatively) easy, low-hanging fruit to make the US a lot safer. And you can argue that social and economic factors are ALWAYS being addressed anyway - see the push for diversity and equality (which many conservatives oppose anyway) and of course the economy. Unless...you're implying that locking up more blacks like the violent crime bill did is the solution to reducing crime? I really hope not but that's the conclusion you seem to be heading towards.

Yet again, that 50% reduction was INTERNATIONAL and also happened in Europe and other developed countries which don't have guns. There is more than one factor involved, so when crime reduces because of a factor that is not gun numbers all of a sudden gun numbers don't matter anymore? Again, you're reasoning *exactly* like brent. CO2 is increasing but it will start getting colder as we approach winter. That doesn't mean CO2 suddenly has no effect - in this case, a reason that is not CO2, specifically the earth's axial tilt, causes the decrease in temperature in winter. I still don't see how you're not getting this. I'm sure you can do two variables.

Any thoughts on the new LK-99 material being analysed by several labs now?

And that's the key - in those languages. The problem with those Brits I mentioned, is that it's their ONLY strategy, and also *only* in English. It has become a ridiculed stereotype in Europe. The problem with Winsor's comment is that he presents it as a "trick" that's somehow clever and not very common knowledge. But anyway, comparing people to mines, cliff faces, other inanimate objects with no decision making or agency, it's a classic victim blaming tactic. As if they had no other choice but to commit the crime.

No, you're really not.

This is the strategy used by many Brits in Europe, and they are ridiculed for this. But god forbid learning another language, right?

Comparing thinking, deciding people to unthinking, unconscious mines implies that they had no other choice but to kill. So you really have to stop with the analogies.

Oh, you get to set the standards now? That''s rich... 2 years ago NASA and other agencies predicted that the La Nina was forming and would make 2022 only the 5th hottest year on record. Instead of impressing you, all you did was crow and pat your own back that "it's not the hottest year despite record CO2". Early this year you "went out on a limb" and predicted this year won't even hit the top 5 hottest, but you know what you're doing? GUESSING. (And you already have a 97% chance of being wrong). Yes you edited it out, but this shows what you think scientists do, because you have to think you're at par somehow, and "just guessing" the absolute limit of your ability.

There's a difference when your death is caused by a human, vs an accident (no matter how high the accident rate is). Being killed by a racist human, vs being killed by a rock face in BASE jumping implies that the racist human can't control their actions and is therefore not at fault.

Go on then, show where the data has been "molested". It'll be interesting to see you, who could barely add, check how this data has been processed.

So when a crime is committed, do you ALWAYS blame the victim, or is that only when you like the perpetrator? Let's see you blame the victim when it's a middle aged white man, and the perpetrator is an immigrant... Based on your reasoning, if you WERE murdered by a Hell's Angels biker, they should get away scot-free, no consequences.

Go on...you haven't answered the question yet.

Anything that the scientific community has less than 99% certainty about, brent will latch on because he has 100% certainty about things, which makes him BETTER than anyone who has uncertainty. Just ignore the fact that he can't process any function with more than 1 variable...