Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Monday July 19 2021, @04:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the 35°C-TW dept.

How hot is too hot for the human body?:

Some climate models predict that we're going to start hitting wet-bulb temperatures over 95 °F by the middle of the 21st century. Other researchers say we're already there. In a study published in 2020, researchers showed that some places in the subtropics have already reported such conditions—and they're getting more common.

While most researchers agree that a wet-bulb temperature of 95 °F is unlivable for most humans, the reality is that less extreme conditions can be deadly too. We've only hit those wet-bulb temperatures on Earth a few times, but heat kills people around the world every year.

[...] Heat acclimatization builds up over time: It can start in as little as a few days, and the whole process can take six weeks or longer, Hanna says. People who are more acclimatized to heat sweat more, and their sweat is more diluted, meaning they lose fewer electrolytes through their sweat. This can protect the body from dehydration and heart and kidney problems, Hanna says.

Acclimatization is why heat waves in cooler places, or heat waves early in summer, are more likely to be deadly than the same conditions in hotter places or later in summer. It's not just that places like Canada and Seattle are less likely to have air conditioning, although infrastructure is another big factor in how deadly heat waves will be. Residents of cooler places are also just less acclimatized to the heat, so wet-bulb temperatures below 95 °F can be deadly.

Wet-bulb temperature


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday July 20 2021, @06:35PM (23 children)

    by fakefuck39 (6620) on Tuesday July 20 2021, @06:35PM (#1158367)

    >that is half the size of your lake
    and this is where every geologist disagrees with the climate change scientists. if you look at the earth's co2 levels vs temp, over the last few hundred million years, there is almost no correlation.
    https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-539be9f47112048e24a6d516d068161c [quoracdn.net]

    >we're not seeing the natural changes
    says you. the chart over the last billion years says otherwise. the chart over the last million years shows this exact thing has happened 7 times, when humans weren't making any co2.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#/media/File:Temperature-change-and-carbon-dioxide-change-measured-from-the-EPICA-Dome-C-ice-core-in-Antarctica-v2.jpg [wikipedia.org]

    Yes, I get it, pretty much all climate scientists say we're causing the climate change. They've been saying it for 40 years now, and every decade they give estimates, and every decade they move their current estimates 10 years more into the future. I'm not doubting climate change - it's happening clearly. And it's happened hundreds of times before, when we weren't around. And literally every geologist disagrees with the climate scientists. Now if you can actually address the two points I've made here, I'm open to changing my mind. Until then, all I'm seeing is adding a glass of water to a big lake, not adding half a lake to a lake.

    >it's not going to change the basic observation
    then explain the 7 other observations of this exact thing happening in the last million years.

    >we are seeing heating in line with what is predicted by the basic radiative models
    and in the last 40 years, that model has been adjusted 4 times. it's what happens when you quantitatively change your formula till it fits the data. sorry, that's not qualitative science, and quantitative science, as in my first chart, does not show that correlation.

    go ahead, change my mind - I'd love that actually, but there's a reason geologists disagree with the climate scientists.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 20 2021, @09:31PM (22 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 20 2021, @09:31PM (#1158448) Journal

    and this is where every geologist disagrees with the climate change scientists.

    Do they? I disagree with climate scientists too, but in the matter of degree.

    I'll note that I'm greatly understating the actual contribution from humanity. Last I checked about 55% of CO2 emitted by humanity got sinked. So we've actually added, past tense, a glass of CO2 (and equivalents) that is a bit larger than the lake. The 50% or so increase is what actually still in the air.

    if you look at the earth's co2 levels vs temp, over the last few hundred million years, there is almost no correlation.

    Unless, of course, there is that correlation, and your data is garbage since it's all heavily proxy data. Also, you're ignoring the confounding effects of geological changes like movement of continents, which can alter formation of polar ice and the eventual albedo of Earth. That's not going to play a role in a time frame of roughly 150 years.

    There is considerable futility in extending such observations to a time when humans are making significant changes to CO2 concentrations over the span of human lifetimes.

    we are seeing heating in line with what is predicted by the basic radiative models

    and in the last 40 years, that model has been adjusted 4 times. it's what happens when you quantitatively change your formula till it fits the data. sorry, that's not qualitative science, and quantitative science, as in my first chart, does not show that correlation.

    You are also conflating climate models with a particular primitive model, the one dimensional radiative model. My point is that this primitive model [rsc.org], which incidentally is based on some pretty solid physics and is over a century old, does a good job of explaining heating of Earth without the conveniently adjustable parameters of the many climate models out there (or the exaggerated feedback mechanisms that have yet to be observed).

    When people talk about how solid the science is, they're talking about this model.

    • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Tuesday July 20 2021, @09:54PM (21 children)

      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Tuesday July 20 2021, @09:54PM (#1158460)

      >Do they
      yes, they do. as I've stated, my father is a geologist w/ a chem phd.
      https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/why-its-so-tricky-for-geologists-to-think-about-climate-change.html [slate.com]

      the issue here, is geologists study the earth and hence long-term climate cycles, which are a recorded fact. pretty much all climate change scientists however are meteorologists and study short-term cycles, which are observed facts. to study climate change however, the climate meteorologist takes geological data and applies what he learned to it. It's similar to a handyman doing soil analysis to determine if it's safe to build a house on a piece of land.

      >Unless, of course, there is that correlation
      you didn't look at the graph, did you.

      >your data is garbage since it's all heavily proxy data
      this is recorded data from ice and core samples, which is not in doubt here by the people educated in this field. so when the data collected by the geologists doesn't fit your feelings, then their data, which they have consensus on, must be garbage? gotcha.

      wait, so you lead with "human-produced CO2 causing climate change," I show you two graphs that disprove that, now you're telling me "forget that, it's H2CO3 causing the climate change?

      >When people talk about how solid the science is, they're talking about this model.
      when people talk about human-caused climate change, they're talking about human-caused CO2 emissions. If you're here to pretend they don't, the reasonable part of the discussion is over, and I'm going to just start making fun of you for my personal entertainment.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 21 2021, @12:36PM (20 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday July 21 2021, @12:36PM (#1158722) Journal
        Thank you for your serious posts in this thread.

        this is recorded data from ice and core samples, which is not in doubt here by the people educated in this field. so when the data collected by the geologists doesn't fit your feelings, then their data, which they have consensus on, must be garbage? gotcha.

        The ice core data did show extensive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. So it actually confirms the basic narrative. The 600 million years of data OTOH is so tenuous and has such extreme confounding factors (like continental scale geology and the introduction of new branches of plants, both which can modify Earth's albedo and temperature a great deal without changing CO2 levels), we can't use it to support your argument.

        wait, so you lead with "human-produced CO2 causing climate change," I show you two graphs that disprove that, now you're telling me "forget that, it's H2CO3 causing the climate change?

        No, they don't. Among the other things I already mentioned, there weren't humans producing CO2 back then.

        When people talk about how solid the science is, they're talking about this model.

        when people talk about human-caused climate change, they're talking about human-caused CO2 emissions. If you're here to pretend they don't, the reasonable part of the discussion is over, and I'm going to just start making fun of you for my personal entertainment.

        Since when does "talking about this model" mean "human-caused CO2 emissions"? I'm not "pretending" by talking about something different.

        the issue here, is geologists study the earth and hence long-term climate cycles, which are a recorded fact. pretty much all climate change scientists however are meteorologists and study short-term cycles, which are observed facts. to study climate change however, the climate meteorologist takes geological data and applies what he learned to it. It's similar to a handyman doing soil analysis to determine if it's safe to build a house on a piece of land.

        And as long as that soil analysis is done well, then it works. One of the early things that got me concerned about the direction climate research was going, was the take by people in nearby fields, not just geology, that there was something weird going on in climatology, particularly with how they handled their model building, data manipulation, and statistical analysis.

        For example, every major extinction and a few other significant geological events in the Earth's geological past have been examined through the lens of greenhouse gases emissions. Greenhouse gases have varied by enormous amounts over those times so it's not unreasonable to expect it to be a significant contributor or even a trigger for some of these events. But too often, these events were viewed through that lens only to generate hysteria in the present. For example: [stanford.edu]

        The greatest loss of biodiversity in the history of animal life occurred at the end of the Permian Period (∼252 million years ago). This biotic catastrophe coincided with an interval of widespread ocean anoxia and the eruption of one of Earth’s largest continental flood basalt provinces, the Siberian Traps. Volatile release from basaltic magma and sedimentary strata during emplacement of the Siberian Traps can account for most end-Permian paleontological and geochemical observations. Climate change and, perhaps, destruction of the ozone layer can explain extinctions on land, whereas changes in ocean oxygen levels, CO2, pH, and temperature can account for extinction selectivity across marine animals. These emerging insights from geology, geochemistry, and paleobiology suggest that the end-Permian extinction may serve as an important ancient analog for twenty-first century oceans.

        What's missed is that at best, the sampling of that period has a resolution of tens of thousands of years (that is, even the most finely measured data of that event is averaged over a considerable span of time). My take is that relatively modest chemical changes over a few tens of thousands of years doesn't reflect the harm of volcanic activity which might have inputted most of those chemicals in a few gigantic episodic eruptions rather than steady state for the entire time. But it's great for creating alarm today.

        It's no wonder that knowledgeable people looking at research like that would wonder what really is going on.

        • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:11PM (19 children)

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:11PM (#1158861)

          >we can't use it to support your argument.

          again, the data and opinion of geologists don't agree with your feelings, so you just say "well, we can't use that data." We can and are using that data.

          >The ice core data did show extensive correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature
          it quite literally shows the opposite. you still didn't bother looking at the data or graphs, did you.

          >extreme confounding factors
          correct. take those data points on the graph, and throw them out. Now look at places in the graph where no such major events happen - you have many parts where the CO2 goes up and down a little, and the temp goes up and down a little. Many places the temp stays almost constant, while CO2 changes. Example: -250 to -200 mil years ago.

          >And as long as that soil analysis is done well, then it works
          and here you go again. the reason the graph doesn't fit your feelings is because you're assuming the consensus of all the geologists is wrong, and it must be that they all screwed up their analysis. yeah, that must be it.

          >has a resolution of tens of thousands of years
          yes, that's the point. and when you're looking at global climate change, that's the scale that's more appropriate to examine.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @03:17AM (18 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 22 2021, @03:17AM (#1159007) Journal

            because you're assuming the consensus of all the geologists is wrong

            That would be the smart money bet. They don't have a lot of practice with this, after all.

            For example, what was the atmospheric pressure during this 600 million year span? Higher and lower pressures can generate significant differences in heat retention. But atmospheric pressure is hard to determine. For example, this article [acs.org] suggests that the Earth may have started 4.5 billion years ago with an atmosphere of roughly 90 times the present atmospheric pressure (mostly made of CO2) which dropped in half after oceans formed (and dissolved CO2), and then dropped dramatically again as plant life and calcium carbonate-shelled lifeforms started burying carbon in the past billion years. That much atmosphere would have greatly increased the global temperature of early Earth.

            yes, that's the point. and when you're looking at global climate change, that's the scale that's more appropriate to examine.

            Except when change is fast enough. For example, in the ice core example, CO2 levels never exceeded 320 ppm. We're over 400ppm and increased rapidly [noaa.gov] at the rate of roughly 1.8 ppm per year - that means that we're inserting 320 ppm every 175 years which is much less than tens of thousands of years.

            My point here is that while the narrative of present day climate change (and its urgency) isn't supported by the science, a lower rate of change is supported. I think it is unwise to downplay human activity as being a minor contributor.

            • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:04AM (17 children)

              by fakefuck39 (6620) on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:04AM (#1159017)

              yes yes, the "smart" bet would be to assume a bunch of scientists studying the subject matter are all wrong, and all their data is wrong. you don't have to repeat the same dumb shit over and over. i got it. you know better from a youtube video. but here's the big question - who won the election??

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @10:00AM (16 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 22 2021, @10:00AM (#1159076) Journal

                yes yes, the "smart" bet would be to assume a bunch of scientists studying the subject matter are all wrong, and all their data is wrong.

                Which bunch would that be? The climatologists or the geologists?

                • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:04AM (15 children)

                  by fakefuck39 (6620) on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:04AM (#1159087)

                  either bunch sherlock.

                  but first, you mean meteorologists, not climatologists - which is a hipster new term for someone with a degree in meteorology. like weather girls.

                  both groups are a bunch of very smart very educates scientists, who study the same thing. the geologists have studied it for a hundred years, the meteorologists for about 40. it's hard to decide who is right. but here comes "khallow" with a google search, a youtube video, and some feelings, declaring the geological data is wrong, and also that it was misinterpreted. can't exaplain how or why, because he doesn't understand any of it, but "because data points are 10k years apart, and it negates the data, because it does."

                  • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:32AM (14 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:32AM (#1159092) Journal

                    you mean meteorologists, not climatologists

                    I would have used that word, if I meant it.

                    the geologists have studied it for a hundred years, the meteorologists for about 40.

                    40 isn't much less than 100, and as I noted, the geologists are going to need more than 100 years to get good information about climate change several hundred million years ago. They'll need hard data.

                    it's hard to decide who is right. but here comes "khallow" with a google search, a youtube video/quote> A YouTube video? Has anyone in this thread been posting YouTube videos? Your narratives are colorful, but what do they have to do with the science we've been talking about?

                    • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:55AM (13 children)

                      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Thursday July 22 2021, @11:55AM (#1159096)

                      >I would have used that word, if I meant it.
                      and had you, you would have been correct. hence me correcting you. there is a chance you could be talking about climatologists though - I'll give you that. most climate scientists are meteorologists, not climatologists. so yeah, I'll give the to you then, I should not have corrected you.

                      according to you then, we have 2 groups - the geologists, a large group with one opinion, and the climatologists - a tiny small group with a different opinion. you then say "smart money" is on the tiny group of scientists, and the really big group of scientists who have studied this for 2x the time, is wrong, and all their data is wrong. obviously!

                      which, given your autism, makes perfect sense to you. and which, given your autism, keeps you as my personal clown, here to entertain me.

                      >are going to need more than 100 years
                      clown makeup
                      >They'll need hard data.
                      clown hair

                      autism. a disease you were born with, and die with. there's nothing you can do to escape.

                      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Sunday July 25 2021, @12:33PM (12 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday July 25 2021, @12:33PM (#1159753) Journal

                        according to you then, we have 2 groups - the geologists, a large group with one opinion, and the climatologists - a tiny small group with a different opinion. you then say "smart money" is on the tiny group of scientists, and the really big group of scientists who have studied this for 2x the time, is wrong, and all their data is wrong. obviously!

                        Why not? You have anything to contribute to this thread other than the feelz that your scientists are more right than their scientists? The size of the tribe or the length of study doesn't make someone more or less right. Evidence does. And frankly, claiming "most of the climate change is human-made" based on data like "geological records, on the millions of years scale" makes you just as wrong as the climate alarmists because neither of you are using actual evidence.

                        Just on the data you've given me about ice cores, I see evidence that CO2 levels and global mean temperature correlate - as predicted by the most basic model, the 1-dimensional radiative model of greenhouse gases warming (which also happens to be based on fairly solid physics). That's the scientific pattern - come up with a model based on the properties of the phenomena you are studying, and collect data which happens to confirm that model. I'll note that the model also explains well warming over the past century. One aspect of that prediction is that human activity is predicted to explain about three quarters of present day global warming.

                        • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Sunday July 25 2021, @12:48PM (11 children)

                          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Sunday July 25 2021, @12:48PM (#1159755)

                          I contributed quite a bit. Showed graphs, data, and explanations, and why I think one group is right and the other is not. Your contribution was "data is wrong, scientists are wrong."

                          >I see evidence that CO2 levels and global mean temperature correlate
                          this explains a lot actually. the physical defect in your brain is your eyes see one thing, and it gets distorted by the time it gets to your brain - bad wiring.

                          correlate means when one goes up, so does the other. when one drops, so does the other. the graph I linked does not do that. your conclusion: they correlate. also your conclusion: the data is wrong.

                          >greenhouse gases warming
                          yes sherlock. there's the eye thing. the geologists think there is a weak correlation. As in you double the CO2 and temp goes up 1%. while the other 99%, as shown by the graph, comes from something else.

                          >The size of the tribe or the length of study doesn't make someone more or less right.
                          I see, so how long you study and collect the evidence, and how many scientists agree on a certain viewpoint doesn't make it right. In fact, it's meaningless, because you feel a certain way. That was pretty clear. People with autism are usually ruled by emotion.

                          >I'll note that the model also explains well warming over the past century
                          strangely, if you look on the graph for the last million years, where we do have more granular data, we've been through global warming 7 times already. before cars, before cows, before people.

                          But I do love this insight into your brain defect - it entertains me. It's like in your head is a rotting kitchen sponge, just making up anything you want to feel about the world around you. words, pictures, probably sounds. That and complete rejection by society at large, it's like you're being punished by god for existing. Every day. And it will never stop.

                          • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday July 26 2021, @08:38AM (10 children)

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 26 2021, @08:38AM (#1159934) Journal

                            graphs, data, and explanations

                            Those can be evidence, but you need more than their mere existence. Even badly wrong theories have figured out how to use these things. Let's review the key graph [wikipedia.org] that's holding you back. It's a graph of CO2 concentration in atmosphere and temperature. There's a very high correlation between the two, for example, peaks and troughs between the two. Any peak in CO2 (that remains a peak for say 50k years) has a peak in temperature nearby and vice versa. Troughs don't correlate quite as well, but it's pretty close too with low parts in one data set matching the low parts in the other.

                            Right there, I have graphs, data, and an explanation. What makes yours better than mine especially when your data is better explained by my explanation?

                            • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26 2021, @08:44AM (9 children)

                              by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 26 2021, @08:44AM (#1159938)

                              >Right there, I have graphs, data, and an explanation.
                              you have actually provided none of that - all you've done is claim "data is wrong because datapoints are 10k years apart" - why does that make it wrong? Oh because. But let's say you weren't a dense and autistic social reject.

                              What I said was, I was first on the side of the meteorologists, then looked at what the geologists were saying and now agree with this other group of scientists. I then invited people to change my mind with their explanations, as I'm fully onboard with that. You then went on a 50-response autistic garble of nothing.

                              Which, again, is what I'm here for. I would never actually have an intellectual discussion with someone like you, or on this site. I am here so you can say autistic things, and I can then call you an autist. Repeatedly, and neverending - like your autism.

                              • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday July 26 2021, @08:47AM (8 children)

                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 26 2021, @08:47AM (#1159940) Journal

                                you have actually provided none of that

                                An ice core study going back 800k years or so says otherwise.

                                • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26 2021, @09:09AM (7 children)

                                  by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 26 2021, @09:09AM (#1159951)

                                  It's strange. You can clearly go back and reread my responses to that, yet you choose to keep being called an incel and repeating the conversation. Cool.

                                  The study shows we have had this climate change 7 times already in the last 800k years. My claim, as is the geologists' is that Human climate change is tiny, and the rest is caused by something else. It is that CO2 does cause climate change, on a tiny scale. You are moving your goal posts, because your autistic incel brain needs to be right, and you're too dumb to actually provide the reasoning.

                                  The argument is against the climate change being caused by Humans. You provide a graph with the same climate change we have now, happening 7 times before there were any humans around. Good job retard.

                                  • (Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Monday July 26 2021, @04:00PM (6 children)

                                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday July 26 2021, @04:00PM (#1160028) Journal

                                    My claim, as is the geologists' is that Human climate change is tiny, and the rest is caused by something else.

                                    Tiny is a matter of opinion. But we can say that human climate change causes significant, observable changes in climate.

                                    For example, about 10% of the Earth's surface (about 40% of land area) has been modified for human use (such as agriculture, pastureland, roads, and urban areas) and we have significant movement and extinction of organisms which can affect climate on a continental scale (ant and rodent invasive species, large mammal extinctions, invasive plants that increase fuel load for wildfires - anything that can change albedo on that scale). As I've noted before, CO2 concentrations are higher now than we've observed from those ice cores (with isotope analysis indicating most of that new CO2 likely comes from human activity).

                                    We have a solid physical model that predicts about three quarters of the observed global warming of the past 150 or so years comes from human activity, given our estimates of human contributions to CO2 and other greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere. On that last point, what's the better model? When climatologists add more complexity, they predict a lot more heating (the consensus of 3 C long term warming per doubling of CO2 is twice the warming predicted from the above model and some models predict a lot more than that). Nobody has a model that predicts less warming than the Arrhenius base model - not even the climate skeptics.

                                    There's not much point to data like the hundreds of millions scale data that ignores a variety of confounding factors (continental-scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and atmospheric pressure/density) as well as the absence of the human-driven dynamics of present day climate change.

                                    You provide a graph with the same climate change we have now, happening 7 times before there were any humans around.

                                    The fact that climate changes doesn't indicate the impossibility of significant human-caused climate change. Indeed, it shows the opposite, that such is possible.

                                    • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Monday July 26 2021, @07:26PM (5 children)

                                      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday July 26 2021, @07:26PM (#1160123)

                                      >continental-scale geology, evolution of plant cover, and atmospheric pressure/density
                                      we know all of those things lol

                                      >observed global warming of the past 150 or so years
                                      yes, because when we're talking long-term climate change for an entire huge planet in a solar system, we want to look at the day to day, not the millions of years of history. again, lol.

                                      >climate changes doesn't indicate the impossibility
                                      and it doesn't indicate the impossibility of 5th dimension flying unicorns either. the autist's conclusion from this is apparently "see, proof of flying unicorns." you should start a religion for the tards.

                                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday July 27 2021, @05:28AM (4 children)

                                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday July 27 2021, @05:28AM (#1160290) Journal

                                        and it doesn't indicate the impossibility of 5th dimension flying unicorns either.

                                        Really? Sounds like it's not good for much then!

                                        The problem is that not demonstrating what you want to show is a more serious problem than those 5-dim unicorns.

                                        • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Wednesday July 28 2021, @06:11PM (3 children)

                                          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Wednesday July 28 2021, @06:11PM (#1160721)

                                          It takes a real dense dimwit to not realize the unicorn is your conclusion. You know, because you literally used that exact wording about impossibility. But I'm glad you agree with me that you're completely full of crap.

                                          >The problem is that not demonstrating what you want to show
                                          right - when the data demonstrates the opposite of what you want to show, you just call the data wrong or useless. whatever keeps you in your little world, refreshing tabs, switching vpn connections, and posting little ac freakout songs all over the place. the effort you make, just to talk online - knowing you make that effort, just for me, is very gratifying. thank you autistic incel - never change. are you watching japanese unicorn girl cartoon porn today, or does the japanese rubber doll need some lovin? do you think of creaming creimer when you make love to the doll?

                                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:22AM (2 children)

                                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:22AM (#1160927) Journal

                                            It takes a real dense dimwit to not realize the unicorn is your conclusion.

                                            Apparently, it takes more commonsense than you have to notice that you're the one who brought up the unicorns.

                                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:33AM (1 child)

                                              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:33AM (#1160930)

                                              me: you're arguing proving a negative, like that flying unicorns don't exist
                                              you: i'm autistic and have trouble reading when i don't take my pills. now go away, my asian rubber doll awaits sex
                                              me: yes, however the physical brain defect caused by your autism is not curable, and you will be a dense incel for the remainder of your days. what's it like to live in a brain fog, unable to understand basic sentences? what's it like having sex with dolls? what's it like to be insanely ugly and disgusting to the opposite sex?

                                              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:43AM

                                                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday July 29 2021, @05:43AM (#1160932) Journal

                                                me: you're arguing proving a negative, like that flying unicorns don't exist

                                                Except, of course, the scenario would be that you would give seven examples of flying unicorns being made naturally, and then arguing that somehow shows that humans can't make them too.

                                                In other words, climate change has nature cooties so humans can't do climate change.