Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit.

As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted:

The overall amount of global warming
Greater warming over land vs oceans
Arctic amplification
Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases)

And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured.

In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering.

The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.

The models from the 90s let alone the 70s were absolutely horrible. Its why they come up with brand new models every few years, because they know the old models sucked. The models couldn't predict anything more than a few years out, and completely stumbled all over historical data. Not that this stopped anyone from saying the "science was settled."

And yes, climate scientists have been preaching doom for decades, and none of the doom comes to pass. Its hilarious you're pretending they haven't been doing so. We can't get a colder/warmer/windier day than average without one of your ilk spouting off about how we've destroyed the planet and we're all going to die by Tuesday.

Please share the exact quote where someone said we’re all going to die by Tuesday.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit.

As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted:

The overall amount of global warming
Greater warming over land vs oceans
Arctic amplification
Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases)

And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured.

In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering.

The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.

The models from the 90s let alone the 70s were absolutely horrible. Its why they come up with brand new models every few years, because they know the old models sucked. The models couldn't predict anything more than a few years out, and completely stumbled all over historical data. Not that this stopped anyone from saying the "science was settled."

And yes, climate scientists have been preaching doom for decades, and none of the doom comes to pass. Its hilarious you're pretending they haven't been doing so. We can't get a colder/warmer/windier day than average without one of your ilk spouting off about how we've destroyed the planet and we're all going to die by Tuesday.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Oh yea they are just grant seeking! As if climate scientists are living high on the hog making millions peddling bullshit.

As for the models, they are indeed accurate and even looking at the majority of models from the 1970s to 1990s they correctly predicted:

The overall amount of global warming
Greater warming over land vs oceans
Arctic amplification
Stratospheric cooling alongside tropospheric warming (a key fingerprint of greenhouse gases)

And those were before we had current satellite and cloud supercompute capabilities. Climate models today are dramatically better than early versions; they run at much higher resolution, assimilate real-world satellite and ocean data in near-real time, and are constantly validated against observed trends. That’s why projections made decades ago are lining up with what we’ve actually measured.

In the last decade, event attribution has also matured: scientists now use large model ensembles, observational records, and physical constraints to quantify how much climate change altered the odds or intensity of specific events. It’s no longer speculative, it’s probabilistic risk analysis, the same kind used in medicine and engineering.

The stuff that the right wing tosses around to sow doubt, like "they said we'd be under 30 feet of water by now" or "they said we would be going into an ice age" and whatever else is hugely distorted and cherrypicked and is not even remotely an accurate reflection of what climate science is saying.

Only an idiot would believe conclusions drawn from 20 cherrypicked subjects. I voted Trump and even I'm not wasting time reading this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

Hasan Piker is a young guy lib. There just isn’t a big ecosystem like they have.

Hasan is a jackass.

They need to be promoting folks like Dean Withers and Parker Butler who are young, compelling, sharp witted, strong command of facts and details, who can absolutely destroy most of the right wing's best debaters.

I have a 22 yo son and this article rings pretty true to what I have heard him/his friends say. Everything is a joke, they are constantly looking for short form clips of entertainment for their news and don't seem particularly worried about their future.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

Why do you say climate models have been wrong? They’ve been remarkably accurate so far in predicting tropospheric temperature increases over the last forty years. Sounds like you’ve bought into the Fox disinformation campaign. But you’re correct - there’s no point in showing MAGA data on this or any other factual issue. They just don’t care.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats don't really debate issues. We just say "trust the experts." How can we debate climate change with a denier? They will say the climate change models haven't predicted accurately; we'll say how can you doubt the experts from good universities, they'll say the scientists are just grant-seeking, we'll say the models may have been wrong so far but they'll be right eventually if we just trust the experts.

This is what republicans do.

Prove me wrong bro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

Hasan Piker is a young guy lib. There just isn’t a big ecosystem like they have.

Hasan Piker is a psycho grifter who tortures a dog. He's a "left wing" version of MAGA, but he's not a civilized person that Democrats want.

The educated Dems won’t vote for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

Hasan Piker is a young guy lib. There just isn’t a big ecosystem like they have.

Hasan Piker is a psycho grifter who tortures a dog. He's a "left wing" version of MAGA, but he's not a civilized person that Democrats want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

Hasan Piker is a young guy lib. There just isn’t a big ecosystem like they have.

Really? The millionaire who cosplays as a socialist?

He is very popular, I don’t know what to tell you 🤷‍♀️. Our government has become like a reality tv show. Nobody watches the Real Housewives to see them drink mimosas and be nice to each other, people want to see them argue and be messy. The same applies here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.city-journal.org/article/manhattan-institute-focus-group-gen-z-republicans

Grab a glass of wine and scroll with morbid curiosity and horror

One weird thing I noticed: the Christians are all Baptists or refer to themselves as non-denominational Protestant, with the exception of a single Methodist. I have no idea what a non-denominational Protestant is, although there are a lot of "free Lutheran" churches that broke off from the ELCA (actually did back when the ELCA was formed), or are these the evangelicals who go to megachurches? One irony: the Baptists were a strong force for the separation of church and state when the Bill of Rights was written.

Contemporary Megachurch Christianity. It’s basically Baptist with no organizational framework.

i.e. Christian nationalism

Not always. These churches are just less restricted by rules. Also a lot of them are big huge money makers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All this tells me is that Democrats need to find some charismatic influencers to reach this generation. Also more folks who can engage in debate.

Democrats with charisma are so hard to find!

Hasan Piker is a young guy lib. There just isn’t a big ecosystem like they have.

Really? The millionaire who cosplays as a socialist?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.city-journal.org/article/manhattan-institute-focus-group-gen-z-republicans

Grab a glass of wine and scroll with morbid curiosity and horror

One weird thing I noticed: the Christians are all Baptists or refer to themselves as non-denominational Protestant, with the exception of a single Methodist. I have no idea what a non-denominational Protestant is, although there are a lot of "free Lutheran" churches that broke off from the ELCA (actually did back when the ELCA was formed), or are these the evangelicals who go to megachurches? One irony: the Baptists were a strong force for the separation of church and state when the Bill of Rights was written.

Contemporary Megachurch Christianity. It’s basically Baptist with no organizational framework.

i.e. Christian nationalism

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.city-journal.org/article/manhattan-institute-focus-group-gen-z-republicans

Grab a glass of wine and scroll with morbid curiosity and horror

One weird thing I noticed: the Christians are all Baptists or refer to themselves as non-denominational Protestant, with the exception of a single Methodist. I have no idea what a non-denominational Protestant is, although there are a lot of "free Lutheran" churches that broke off from the ELCA (actually did back when the ELCA was formed), or are these the evangelicals who go to megachurches? One irony: the Baptists were a strong force for the separation of church and state when the Bill of Rights was written.

Contemporary Megachurch Christianity. It’s basically Baptist with no organizational framework.