Yuppie, Hippie, Yippie, Hipster, Yipster, confused yet? Youth International Party still alive?

Yuppie comes from Young Urban Professional, sounds simple enough.

Hippies are pot smoking communists who hate meat, never shower and sleep in trees.

Yippie comes from Youth International Party, thought to be the combination of the 2 above.

Hipster is the new emo kid who decided suicide isn’t for him.

Yipster, could either come from Yuppie + Hipster, or Yippie + hipster, or Yippie + hustler.

I copied this from wikipedia since the writing is so poor (and I could’ve written it worse)

Yipster is a terminological hybrid of the words, “Hipster” and “Yuppie” borne out of the geographical and cultural proximities between two gentrified neighborhoods in Brooklyn, New York: Williamsburg and Park Slope. The word’s significance is based around the idea that cultural features associated with “hipsters” (Williamsburg), such as particular interests in music, art and fashion, blend with the economic advantages of “Yuppies” (Park Slope), which simultaneously facilitate and promote such interests to the extent that members of both groups are identified by them. Although a significant amount of animosity and a number of cultural prejudices are shared between both two social groups and neighborhoods, [1] the social strata of the people who populate them are, in terms of race and class, more alike than they are different.

Although many in Brooklyn claim to have coined the term , Yipster, there is evidence the term was in use on the west coast, most notably, Los Angeles and East Hollywood, as early as 1984, which would predate its use on the east coast by almost ten years.

Although many West Coast Yipsters, most notably those from Los Angeles and East Hollywood, feel a kind of pop-cultural inferiority complex to Brooklyn yipsters (as evidenced by the preceding amendment to this entry) the whole subgroup should be found wanting. The problem lies not with their tastes in music, local foodstuffs, artisanal fabrication, or even hypocrisy (which the name Yipster insinuates). The problem is the rotten false consciousness at the group’s core. Such Ideological masking is propped up by a solipsistic turning away from Real politics toward the chimera of coolhunting and “personal development”, which is, in turn, an insidious and defacto surrender to the precise forces most at odds with many hipster ideals (e.g. local, hand made, fair trade, made in earnest with passion and originality etc).

What is the AGW strawman argument and what do deniers actually believe? Or deny?

Actual skeptic arguments include that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is exaggerated or inconsequential, such as those made by Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science at UHA. Skeptics unanimously reject that there is any cause for alarm.

Ok, so tell us, what’s alarm?

By fabricating a strawman argument claiming he found only 1 author who “rejected man-made global warming”, Powell intentionally ignored actual skeptic arguments and failed to count many papers. Including a 14-paper special edition on climate change in the IPCC cited journal, Energy & Environment (Vol. 24, No. 3-4, June 2013) which included,

Slow down here. So it’s a strawman argument to say that only one author rejected man made global warming? That must mean there’s more than one author that rejects man made global warming. Who are they? Lindzen and Christy?

Is this what you’re referring to?
The strong climate-forcing effect of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations advocated by the IPCC, is at odds with climate developments during geological, historical and recent times. Although atmospheric CO2 concentrations continuously increased during industrial times, temperatures did not increase continuously to the present level but stagnated or even declined slightly during 1880 to 1900, 1945 to1977 and again since 1998. Total solar irradiation rose from a low in 1890 to a first peak in 1950 that was followed by a sharp decline ending in 1977, giving way to a period of rapidly increasing radiation peaking in 2002 when solar activity started to decrease, possibly declining to a new Little-Ice-Age type low. The Greenhouse Effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, claimed and widely propagated by IPCC, is particularly vexing as it is widely over-estimated without adequate scientific justification. Large observed climate variations documented for geological and historical times, as well as the lack of insight into the behaviour of complex systems, seriously question the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) concept propagated by the IPCC. The climate variability during industrial times was essentially governed by changes in solar activity with increasing atmospheric CO2 content playing a subordinate role. The climate controlling effect attributed by the IPCC to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations is rejected since supporting models are not compatible with observations. Lastly, the authors consider from a historical and philosophical science point of view why current mainstream climate change research and IPCC assessments may have been on an erring way for several decades.

Here we go again, you can’t make an argument about climate without citing IPCC, and you’re bitching that your argument is being strawmanned? Should I remind people that this bullshit denial is written by a man who admits he over engineers and prepared immensely for Hurricane Sandy? What kind of alarmist prepares for a hurricane when climate is not worth alarming over?

All of the above are indeed meaningless, since Andrew will never tell you what he means by alarm (other than IPCC and Al Gore), he’ll never tell you what he actually believes, and he’ll never tell you what would convince him to change his mind. He’ll never even tell you what HIS side’s scientists believe and predict, such is the case for all deniers and pseudoscientists, they never present arguments that fulfill the standards they demand of their opponents. They never present predictions they’re willing to put to a test and be proven wrong.