Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Blog Comments

  1. 2 points
    I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?) The O'ist conception of government's legitimate function is to protect people from the initiation of force, and in Seattle, government has not only abdicated that function, it's aiding and abetting in that initiation. This headline says it all: "Antifa Deserves a Military Response" https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/11/the-morning-briefing-antifa-deserves-a-military-response-n516040 And yes, I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary. But for HOW long? How long do people have to watch and endure other's suffering before it crosses the line from strategy to sadism? When is it enough? "Trust the plan", I hear. Still, it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force. (Yes, maybe those people aren't so innocent, ideologically speaking, etc. Or, regarding the innocent, the Q explanation "you can't just tell the people, they have to be shown." Perhaps. Still isn't easy to watch. Like the Taggert Tunnel disaster scene. Even Dagny had to be told, upon leaving New York to the darkness, "don't look down!", lest she turn into a pillar of salt...)
  2. 2 points
    My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
  3. 2 points
    Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
  4. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  5. 2 points
    It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
  6. 2 points
    So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
  7. 2 points
  8. 2 points
    Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you have ice cream cones?" "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers." "You really don't have ice cream cones?" "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones... And on it goes. It's amazing to watch. Michael
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
  11. 2 points
    Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!
  12. 1 point
    I know that there are more than one guy with 'you disgusting scumbag' in his mouth reading here. I think 'yds,' and I and invisible readers are all dealing with some relatively straightforward questions, questions that should be amenable to reason of the Randian stripe. Which explanation of of the Twitter Card image behaviour is the more reasonable, makes least assumptions, is the fruit of investigation and inquiry? Which stands up to close scrutiny? Which accounts for all the evidence (including such items as the Q cut and paste from a dev blog)? There would be plenty more questions in play, maybe, if we had a bigger quorum of active members. "Did Obama.org (or Obama race riot sorrows machine) organize a ritual murder of George Floyd?" "Some folk may claim that Q 'warned off' Obama in drops 4436 & 4437*. Does the evidence brought forth from rational inquiry support that claim?" "How would you explain in your own words the three Q drops that caused much discussion and explanatory hypothesizing?" My question to myself is 'what explains why and how some people's beliefs survive a reasonable debunking?' "Let a hundred flowers bloom," said Deng, before he realized how that would probably work out for one-party rule in China and shut it all down. 'Let your freedom of conscience ring. Don't be afraid of devils conjured up to incite prejudice and rage. If evil there is, beware of making The Fundamental Attribution Error.' I paraphrase. As might be apparent, I am not of the Gibbet Enthusiast Party.
  13. 1 point
    This is a screenshot of the above tweet: I will change the <meta> information to update the image and text in the Twitter Card. What will happen to the body of the tweet just capped? <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"> <meta name="twitter:site" content="@DarleneViewer"> <meta name="twitter:title" content="This is an example of a Twitter Card with a Summary and Large Image"> <meta name="twitter:description" content="&quot;Tweet this page&quot; -- A simple set of <meta> tags in the head of an HTML document allows Twitter to insert an image, video, audio or an app within the body of the tweet."> <meta name="twitter:image" content="https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/A47KF/images/IntheMatterOfQ_JL-cap.png">
  14. 1 point
    A fun read, if you like oddities, quirks and foibles ... The Church of QAnon: Will conspiracy theories form the basis of a new religious movement? May 18, 2020 7.12am EDT
  15. 1 point
    An article by Adrienne LaFrance, "The Prophecies of Q," in the Atlantic.
  16. 1 point
    Elon Musk's Favorite Riddle I have no desire to sling arrows at BaalChatzaf. He hasn't posted here in 4 months. He is getting up there in years. Give him a break.
  17. 1 point
    I have been reading Loserthink by Scott Adams. He deals with the very topic under discussion here and spells out the scam I have always sensed and tried to describe as best I could. Scott did a much better job. The gist is that in deciding on whether manmade CO2 causes climate change, we not only get information second hand--after all, very few people make the measurements themselves, therefore most people rely on and pass on what someone says, not what they themselves experienced--we only get to see successes, not failures. And that is very similar to a popular "narrowing down" stock scam. This leads to the blind certainty of the gloom-and-doomers. Here are Scott's words from the book (where he also describes the scam). This is why I believe Brad and William run from answering Jonathan's questions. They are in the sweet spot of the scam targets and that, allied to the social proof and peer pressure of those they read and hang out with who agree with them, makes them certain. They don't need to answer simple questions about climate science and the scientific method and couldn't if they tried--unless they said we need to learn a lot more before we can be certain of any large-scale predictions. And that includes whether man-produced CO2 causes major climate change. Granted, the climate change computer models always fail eventually, at least they have up to now, so that might make it seem like the stocks scam isn't relevant. But short term, scientists stake their reputations on these models and everyone on the manmade climate change side touts how correct they are. And they never say, "Oops," when their climate models blow up. So the public perception is that these models are successful. Sometimes they need to be "refined," but this is tweaking success, not fixing failure. That's the perception. The reality is pure failure. Michael
  18. 1 point
    Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.
  19. 1 point
    Not avoiding or dodging, it's about establishing a conversation based on understood and agreed upon points. You agreed Arrhenius hypothesized increasing co2 would cause warming. Do you agree that humans have increased co2 from 280-~415? There's no point in discussing things any further unless you can answer the question. After all, if you say they haven't, it's on you to offer a source of co2 that is causing levels to rise and let us know where fossil fuel emissions have gone. Or cry conspiracy that co2 levels aren't actually rising. So which is it? 1.Rising caused by humans 2.Rising caused by unknowns 3.All a conspiracy
  20. 1 point
    No, idiot. The difference between a junkyard dog and a human being is stark.
  21. 1 point
    I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer. So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?
  22. 1 point
    What is one legitimate question on the table?
  23. 1 point
    Chemtrails for the win. "It's SCIENCE!"
  24. 1 point
    Superlatives! Oceans were hottest on record in 2019 "That's a lot of zeroes."
  25. 1 point
    We get closer and closer to the Great Awakening ... "Hi, my name is 'Q' -- I have a Top Sekrit Classification, which allows me access to terrific insider information like, um, Fox News tweets. I love my job."
  26. 1 point
  27. 1 point
    Testing an easier way to add in Q-drops. Previously I took screen-captures of Qmap items one by one, then uploaded them, then posted them, then added link attributes pointing to the actual drop on (previously) 8chan.net. Since the 'new' Q server is on an unreliable and often-unreachable channel of the facelifted 8kun, and since Qmap has now added extra editorial material, it's easier for a lazy person like me to simply copy text/HTML snips from Qmap ... This is the experiment. Unfortunately for Q-enthusiasts, there is no way to reach 8kun through Qmap or from these drop-copies below. While 8chan was still functional, Qmap featured embedded links to the particular drop ... but cannot do that now as the 8Kun hosting services are a mess. When you try to get to the original ... 82.9K people are talking about this [Q #3620] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44107570� Publicly known? Think non_public. Access granted. Q [Q #3619] /pf/ was taken down [cleared of content] just prior to platform TERM [specific reason]. NAT SEC [charter] prevents use of 'keys' to establish IDEN via public utility/domain - non_reg. Formation of 'clean' board possible to lock in trip(s) > issues w/ safeguards. Q Fredrick Brennan finds the handwaving and excuses hilarious and inept. The Qmap site has sharing links embedded. This is an example of what a lazy-man's Qdrop to OL could look like, if anyone at all is interested. The headline is from whoever manages the code at Qmap -- "Vindictive Vindman ..." is a editorial gloss. -- if you click the meat of the Tweet above, you get sent to an individual Qmap posting, with even more editorial material added:
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
    Murderous weirdo and huge Democratic fund raiser pal of Senator Liddle Adam Schitt has finally been arrested. This third victim didn’t even die, but something has changed in California. “LOS ANGELES – Ed Buck, a prominent Democratic Party donor, was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house after a third man reportedly suffered an overdose inside his West Hollywood home last week and survived. “These fetishes include supplying and personally administering dangerously large doses of narcotics to his victims,” the prosecutors wrote, according to the Times.” I think he may be playing charades. The answer phrase is See You in 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/major-democratic-donor-ed-buck-arrested-charged-with-running-drug-den.amp
  30. 1 point
    The big demonstration at the monument has attracted at least a couple of hundred people. The live Periscope feed has no sound, which is kind of sad for the producers. New beginnings and ... wrath. Which makes me think of the lust for a purge, and the Committee of Public Safety.
  31. 1 point
    Bullshit. Cirrus clouds persist for hours on end. The water trail from a jet is made of the same stuff as Cirrus Clouds. H2O in a solid state which occurs shortly after gaseous H2O condenses into liquid H2O. All the nasty gasses are invisible. SO2, NOx CO2.
  32. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  33. 1 point
    This is more related to themes covered by various personalities in this thread (the story is in the context of Australia): Not everyone cares about climate change, but reproach won’t change their mind.
  34. 1 point
    One of these things is quite like the other ... Epistemologists are standing by to take your calls.
  35. 1 point
    Oh my god, there's no time to waste? There's no planet B? Oh, no! Well, then, we had better forget all about the questions that I've asked which remain unanswered, and instead focus on action. We have to act now. It's an emerergency. Extreme measures need to be taken. And Billy is going volunteer to be the first. Thank you for your sacrifice, Billy, and for leading by example. J
  36. 1 point
    Jon, Because you don't win culture wars with bans. I'm playing the long game. You seem to prefer short term gratification. I won't be doing any podcasts with any leftie authoritarians, though. They went for the short term gratification and bans (social media and elsewhere). Now they're losing the culture war big time as they sell out to crony corporations just to stay relevant and they are too hate-filled to see it. Once their idiocy stops making money and/or power for the elitist establishment, they will go the way of Avenatti. Slower than him, granted, but the path is the same. Michael
  37. 1 point
    Actually they don't. When one looks at the adjustments, they are equally weighted up and down. Some one could then say that their is a temporal shift in the adjustements, ie early ones shifting down, late shifting up, as a means to exaggerate the trend. The issue there is this is completely opposite of what is seen. The net sum of all adjustments reduces the total trend: https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3280 As for the rest of everything you have to say, it's all conspiracy. Not going to waste my time disproving your teapot in orbit that you can't validate by your own will.
  38. 1 point
    Yes, I agree there is uncertainty. The most recent work is looking like the total feedback is positive. That's why I specifically quoted their work (saying 'likely positive') as well as provided a link to their paper (albeit paywalled) and provided the key diagram that supports their assertion.
  39. 1 point
    The "Greenhouse Effect" (GHE) has been discussed a lot on this site -- at various times and various places. Ba'al Chatzaf (aka Bob Kolker) has been relatively constant in explaining it to readers¹, eg: Brant is on record as accepting the GHE, with caveats. My total impression is that Brant is more concerned with the 'green religion' extremism ... Jonathan hasn't stated his opinions or particular take in his own words (acceptance/rejection/skepticism) on the GHE explicitly -- at least not in so many words. Jon Letendre hasn't, as far as I know, ever discussed the GHE in this thread or any other. Michael hasn't explicitly explored the GHE in earlier discussions. I think his note serves as an open door to re-explore the concept ... In the opening topic post I quoted Bob giving a brief further explanation -- re-introducing the concepts of radiation: Tyndall, Arrhenius ... Ellen Stuttle accepts the Greenhouse Effect, but not any 'alarmist' claims that knock on from it: The Sun is the primary driver of global temperatures. CO2, water vapor and other trace "greenhouse" gases modulate (in some cases) or amplify (in other cases) the Sun's effect on the atmosphere. The other modulator of the Sun's effects are the seas and oceans. Water has a very high heat capacity which means it can absorb a lot of heat with only small temperature increases. My goal in establishing this topic here at Friends and Foes came a few years ago. Approaching difficult issues in an 'objective' manner, per Ayn Rand's Objectivism, means identifying concepts and then integrating them in a hierarchy². Despite the bad blood and personal invective and general agitation we might feel the need to express, I do believe that 'starting at the beginning' with the concept Greenhouse Effect will pay dividends to everyone who seeks reliable knowledge of the key concepts underlying. I also ask that folks contributing to this discussion leave off the personal insults and mind-reading and ascribing disgusting moral failures or 'tribal evil' ... or at least consider editing their contributions to lessen the effect of personalizing discussion. This is my blog, Friends and Foes. Appreciate that a highly-contested issue can trigger emotion. Try to reduce the temperature of the discussion by removing needlessly personal remarks and abusive terms from points made in argument. I have finished my own "cooling off period," and will strive going forward to edit out any "you people" and "your morality" and "your ugly motives" from my own contributions. Just a thought. I won't be moderating any additions to the discussion in the coming days, and probably won't ever. I respect Michael's ban-hammer, and his sensitivities given the recent ruckus between me and "you are a boyfucker" Jon Letendre. Brad, please respect that some folks here will consider you an "invader" and perhaps not be interested in anything you have to contribute. There are a lot of "silent readers" here who can be reached, however. If anyone wants to rag on and become insulting, consider using Dissenter. Otherwise, re-read materials here on The Principle of Charity ... and 'Be Best' ... I will briefly lock this thread as I edit this post (I use a text-to-speech app to check for errors in spelling and grammar). __________ 1. Bob had a small excursion into acceptance of the Gerlich-Tseuschner proposition. 2. “Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.” (See “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Rand, Page 40, Kindle Edition, https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second-ebook/dp/B002OSXD8C/ )
  40. 1 point
    Michael, you wrote, in the linked post: "This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. " Rats. I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do. But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact. I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc. I know him, through my husband. I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together. I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me. I respect him enormously as a scientist. He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name. Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject. It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption. Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology. He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity. He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications. He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were. He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field." The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor. (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.) As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days. There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population). I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly. As to the rest of your post: Bravo! I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities. Cheers, Ellen
  41. 1 point
    As I said, can't make you drink. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/ Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?
  42. 1 point
    I was very born and raised in Tucson. I've been here continually since 1995. I know why it snowed in Tucson today. I SAW IT COME DOWN! A dreadful sight, but glorious! The record snowfall in this hot city is 5 inches, I've been told. Gone with the Sun. On nearby Mt. Lemmon is the southern most United States ski facility. But don't come here for the skiing, go to Flagstaff. Or, better, COLORADO! Next time ask the expert. ---Brant I didn't tell you why it snowed in Tucson, that takes money I don't have (yet) but you do--I hope we have a street in Tucson called "Tyndall"--I lived on it just west of the University of Arizona as a medium-sized boy (my old home destroyed by high-rised student housing--SOB!) in the early and mid-1950s I swear upon the altar of God (eternal hostility over every form of tyranny over the mind of man) that every word I've written here is true (My grandfather, Irving Brant, is responsible for that inscription inside the Jefferson Memorial)
  43. 1 point
    He can’t do it. He can’t resist his stalker urges.
  44. 1 point
    William, No it isn't. That link goes to NBC News. And NBC News has been on a propaganda campaign against President Trump for over two years. I don't know what the "best bet" would be, but going to a place with no credibility whatsoever except as a propaganda outfit is not it. Michael
  45. 1 point
    We have to start punishing people now in order to avoid extinction. It's settle science. If you're a Denier, then you are causing our extinction, and we therefore have the right to stop you with any means necessary. We've tried to do it legally, and we've tried to do it only slightly violently. You didn't listen, so the next step is blood. Damn, it's going to be fun and gloriously righteous to punish the Deniers/Nonbelievers/Infidels! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/17/thousands-gather-to-block-london-bridges-in-climate-rebellion
  46. 1 point
    But what makes you think I'd disagree with that? I only say that such a triviality is not relevant in this discussion. You could as well say "A is A", well so what? Of course I'd condemn both. So? Oh, but evolution could in principle be falsified. That this so far never has happened is very strong evidence for the correctness of the theory. You shouldn't believe what creationists say... See for example: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00045845 What you call anecdotes are verified historical facts, many from Freud's own letters to his fiancée (quite revealing, and therefore longtime suppressed) , his publications, and letters and publications of contemporaries. It is no tabloid gossip, as sometimes is suggested. But, as I wrote before, the central point is that he either lied about his treatment of certain patients, or even made up stories out of whole cloth, but did use those stories as evidence for his theories. That is what makes him a quack, even if his theories might accidentally be correct (never mind that the probability of that is quite low). It may be good fiction, but it isn’t science. For that matter, Freud was certainly a gifted writer, his Die Traumdeutung and his Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens I’ve read many times, it makes fascinating reading, although I’d now have more problems with his tricks and deception. An artist, but not a scientist.
  47. 1 point
    So, you're saying that the "switch" was already on? As in automatically? But then, what, the person volitionally turns it on again, even though it's already on? Do you understand the contradiction now? If not, you should think about it a bit more. Focus harder. Let's review: Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..." That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional. So, I replied, "If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one 'volitionally switch on' thinking and focus?" Then you piped in with an answer that reveals that you didn't understand the gist of the question. Your response doesn't answer the question. J
  48. 1 point
    Just do not start accusing the geese! Some of us do not forget! #stop the Avian Order #justice for Thomas
  49. 1 point
  50. 1 point