Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  2. 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
  3. 1 point
    William, PP is as good as any. Look at my paraphrase of a few of his (or her) comments. That while there are parents who willingly sell their children to the scientism and socialist indoctrination of modern education. It's more likely the teachers, nurses, and others who care for your children are there to turn them into willing thralls for the globalist manmade global warming power mongers. . . . Imagine living in this kind of fear. That a great evil hung over you like a cloud that will soon be destroyed along with the planet. That at any moment evil forces would be there to brainwash and control your family and destroy the entire earth in 10 years. That Christians (and now Trump) are out to get you. . . . Everyone is the outgroup. Everyone is to be distrusted. The enemy surrounds us. Only via isolation and safe spaces can we achieve salvation. Scientism plus statism is a poison that make people hateful and scared. To think anyone would want to be this way makes me sad. That works to a tee for SJW's. Michael
  4. 1 point
    New Jersey requires automobiles to have license plates mounted on the front and rear, I recently bought a car and was issued a paper 'temp' tag for the rear, leaving the front open. I made a 'fun' front plate by fashioning a "Q" out of orange electrical tape on a white backround. I've noticed a few smiles and other approving gestures on the road. The only q quotes or drops I've ever seen have come from reading OL and my favorite ,and to me, the most important q- related story is the one about the deputy sherriff in Florida wearing a patch while welcoming VP Pence. To me the meme is more important and powerful than The Q, prove or disprove the personage , I'll always have Q. Who doesn't want a Q, yeh? Seriously who doesn't want to have the belief that there is a 'righteous' power to speaking ( and 'doing') truth to power?
  5. 1 point
  6. 1 point
    "Did you delete Mike's analysis?" No. It is where it was -- embedded in the comment on the previous page. When we quote a post containing an embedded tweet, we need to include in our selection the 'white space' that follows the tweet. Eg, Voici ...
  7. 1 point
    Filthy talk nonsense from traitor bag of shit Maxine.
  8. 1 point
    Skeptic editor Michael Shermer in conversation with Peter Boghossian:
  9. 1 point
  10. 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
  11. 1 point
    Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
  12. 1 point
    Michael, OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength. I definitely see William as scientistic. Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ. I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad. And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion. So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning. All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifically in AGW because "scientists say." He is aware that there are a lot of good scientists who say nay. I think he mistakenly believes - because of developments in the Arctic - that the yay-sayers have been vindicated. But fine with me not arguing about that. I wouldn't want to get into the details in any case since I don't consider educating William worth the time and trouble. Ellen
  13. 1 point
    Slither slither ... Ellen
  14. 1 point
    Jon, Neither did I. I don't think it was publicized anywhere important. On the other hand, the entire world through the fake news mainstream media knew about the impeachment demonstrations. They didn't report on the turnout (or lack of turnout to be more exact), but everyone knew about the impeachment demonstrations. Michael
  15. 1 point
    Jonathan, This particular news item caught the attention of POTUS. He just retweeted this: Leave it to President Trump to be helpful to his critics. He's using his massive audience to help the manmade climate change people brand themselves correctly. Michael
  16. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  17. 1 point
    The pupil has not demonstrated an understanding of “tiresome reading suggestion #34.” So much for in his own words. Worst fake professor ever. Cartman is a better fake cop. Cartman fakes having been in ‘Nam better than this.
  18. 1 point
    Jonathan, I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.) Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here). Ah... the matters of the heart... She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke. Objectivism in action, that it is... Michael
  19. 1 point
  20. 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
  21. 1 point
    William made starkly obvious how dumb his thinking on climate issues is with this question: Ellen
  22. 1 point
    Carbonic acid in the atmosphere ... from the Spencer Weart online verson of The Discovery of Global Warming, featuring a brief overview of the work of John Tyndall in the Victorian era: See also: "John Tyndall: founder of climate science?"
  23. 1 point
    I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting. I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.
  24. 1 point
    Any changes in the system are driven by changes. This seems obvious but there is an often overlooked implication of that statement. Even though an aspect of the system might have a large factor in the energy balance (albedo) it isn't relevant to changes unless it is changing as well. Albedo is made up of 3 main components scattering by the land and surface, clouds, and reflection from ice and snow. Of these 3 factors, the first and last are changing the most. Land use changes (clearing of forests) creates an increase in albedo while melting of snow and sea ice creates a decrease in albedo. Clouds overall aren't changing from much to none. I've seen some reports putting them at a slight decline, but currently can't find that. So as to whether or not they are impactful to albedo, I'd have to say no. What is referred to as the wild card, or uncertainty with clouds is what kind of feedback clouds will be. Everyone recognizes without issue that clouds reflect sunlight, but they also trap heat. How a cloud impacts the system not only depends on the cloud type that forms but also the timing of them. Obviously nighttime clouds are rather lousy at reflecting incoming light but do a wonderful job of trapping heat. Overall, the feedback effect of clouds is currently considered 'likely positive' (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3402). Clouds are what will bring the system back into equilibrium eventually. As I see it, the simplistic explanation is: Warming causes a decrease in relative humidity -> causes a decrease in cloud production -> less cloud production means a gradual buildup of specific humidity -> this eventually restores the hydrologic (cloud) cycle The hydrologic cycle can't really be fully restored though until the system has stopped warming. Current observations are specific humidity is increasing but relative is still in decline. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity Good general link about clouds https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/cloud-cover
  25. 1 point
    C'mon. What else is he gonna call it? My blog/Your blog? My Notablog? --Brant
  26. 1 point
    I can't say precisely when all of these hypothesis were made, but these are the staple hypothesis of AGW: (https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/predictions-future-global-climate) 1. First and foremost - burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric concentrations of co2. Seems like a no-brainer but I've crossed paths with individuals who dispute that the current rise in atm co2 is not due to human burning of fossil fuels. 2. As a consequence of #1, Increasing non-condensing greenhouse gas concentrations will cause the system to warm 3. As a consequence of #1, pH of the ocean will shift to a more acidic pH as they absorb more co2 4. Along with #2, increasing ghg will simultaneously cause the stratosphere and on up to cool 5. As a consequence of #2, there will be some positive feedbacks triggered, ie reduced albedo due to loss of sea ice, increased water vapor in the atm 6. As a consequence of #2, there will be sea level rise (SLR). There are 2 reasons for this. 1 - warmer water takes up more volume and 2 - melting glaciers To me, those are the key hypothses of AGW, each of which has now been observed. See below for simple responses to each point, starting with #2. If I need to cover my bases on #1, let me know: 2. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/ 3. http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112157 4. https://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp (contains links to supporting papers) 5. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06207 6. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2022 For those wanting to read papers that might be behind a paywall, there is a chrome (maybe firefox as well) extension called unpaywallme. It will give you a lock icon that changes to color when you reach a paywalled paper that has a free version available. It's not 100%, but it will get you most papers for free.
  27. 1 point
    Thanks for the question. First, a link. Yes the number they are using is 6m, rather than .5m, but there are other assumptions being made by your question that are inaccurate. So I'll focus on those inaccuracies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/ Yes, for 2C warming the middle of the road number is around .5m of SLR (sea level rise). This is not the amount of SLR you can expect once you've reached 2C warmer, it's the amount you can expect once the system has fully equilibriated and is back to being in dynamic balance. I say all that because we aren't there. We've warmed over 1C already, and there's currently another 1-1.5C of warming in the pipeline if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow. As we continue to increase co2 concentrations we are only adding more warming into that pipeline. I guess my main point here is it's an ok assumption that we might only rise .5m in 80 yrs, it's not ok to think that that is all the SLR that will occur. I also agree that 80yrs seems like a while for humans to migrate and adapt. However, many of the towns, cities, and villages that do lie within this danger zone of SLR aren't going to be salvageable. One can't simply relocate the city of Miami for example (although their issue is partly subsidence, I hope it's illustrative of the issue nonetheless). The other things that is glossed over by these statements and questions revolves around the inherent chaos of storm systems in these areas. Many coastal towns have been built to account for these storm surges safely. Be it through barriers or simply proximity to the coastline in more remote parts of the world, these natural and man-made barriers or going to prove to be less effective. This raises the long term costs and damages associated with SLR. Now, will we rise 6m? I hope not. That's very drastic change given the timespan. That's the key issue and concern behind AGW after all. It's not whether or not the ice caps have disappeared in the past, they have. It's not whether or not we've been warmer in the past, we have. It's not about whether or not co2 has been higher in the past, it has. The issues surrounding the current changes to the system is how quickly they are changing. The most recent mass extinction (PETM - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) event seems to most likely have been driven by a very large outgassing of methane. Methane is a more potent ghg than co2, however it has a relatively short lifecycle in the atmosphere. That's because methane (ch4) breaks down into co2 and water, and the co2 has a very long adjustment time in the atmosphere. So this co2 can have a very long and persistent effect. My reason for mentioning the PETM is the current rate of change far exceeds the rate's seen in the PETM. The 1C warming we've witnessed over the last 100yrs would have taken 2500yrs during the PETM, and it wiped out approx 50-60% of the biosphere. These mass extinction events don't happen literally overnight, only figuratively. Too much of the dismissal by individuals on the basis of lack of evidence, I think , is due to not witnessing a catastrophe due to AGW during their individual lifetime. My personal thoughts on it is that the human lifespan and experience isn't long enough for any individual to realize the full impacts of what is happening. Each subsequent generation going forward will see a slightly less productive, slightly more shallow biosphere. There won't be a morning that comes where all of humanity to wake up and realize something terrible has happened, like a bomb going off. It will be a much slower and more gradual slide and to me, that's more dangerous because it simply leaves the doors open to individuals to dismiss as some other cause.
  28. 1 point
    There really is no global climate. There are regional climate regimes governed by latitude, topography, nearness to the oceans, the presence of forests and grasslands, etc. In general climate is warmer in the tropics which receive sunlight nearly directly than at the poles where the sunlight cames in aslant due to the tilt of the earth to the plane of the ecliptic. The climate subsystems interact because heat is transferred from the higher temperature regions to the lower temperature regions by the oceans and atmosphere.
  29. 1 point
    In like Flynn, out like Gulen ... The purported 'Witch Hunt' has consulted the Malificarum and laid charges against two former Michael Flynn coven-mates cum business partners ... The aim of their witchery was to get a US resident -- 'cleric' Fethulah Gulen -- rendered unto Turkish justice. If you haven't much background on Fethulah Gulen and his crimes against Turkey, the last link here is your best bet for a quick sponge-up of pertinent details:
  30. 1 point
    It's not about "boisterous" or "snowflakes", it's not about "strong" or "weak". That dichotomy is barbarism. There will always be a portion of society that will try to use primitive tactics and actions to try to gain advantage over others. It's your forum, you choose to allow or not allow whatever behavior. Civility exists, but for it to exist there has to be rules and those rules enforced, otherwise the barbaric will have their way. The rational and moral will be impacted by the "strong" and those who seek superiority over others. Perhaps the rational and moral will seek out "safe spaces"---as what it is currently being called here on OL---if the behavior of others is primitive and aggressive. But like you've said before, you pay the bills here on OL. I'm just one of those long-term members.
  31. 1 point
    Vote for democrats, dudes, so we can impeach Trump and the Koch brothers, and indict Rush Limbaugh, and fine MSK, bro!
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    William, I urge you, like yesterday, to think about the story triangle. I got that off the Internet somewhere, but I learned about it from an Appalachian storyteller, Elizabeth Ellis, who wrote a book with Loren Niemi called Inviting the Wolf In. Also, I took The Art of Storytelling: From Parents to Professionals by Hannah B. Harvey from The Great Courses. Harvey mentioned the story triangle, too. I did a different version of my own for fiction writers for a course I am making. (I'm going the route of drawing up a course in order to teach myself. ) Six relationships. The problem with most authors is that they have a relationship with their story, but don't even reflect on the relationship of their story to them, much less the other four relationships. For example, you mentioned how awful you have been in creating fiction. You gave several examples. Did it ever occur to you to ask why this would be important to the reader? After all, if you don't have a reader, who will read your stuff? So thinking about your relationship (both ways) to the audience is a good thing to do. Believe it or not, there are reasons why a story with examples of your incompetence would be important. The main one is the emotion it makes readers feel. For example, if you were using these examples for comedy and jazzed them up for comic effect, the reader could laugh. Readers like to laugh. If you were presenting a struggle with a payoff, the reader could root for you. Readers like to root for underdogs. If you were showing how each awful attempt was like a lash of a whip on a raw soul that is slowly losing its mind, the reader could feel concern and empathy. Readers like to feel concern and empathy. I could go on. And if you you wanted to include information or agendas or whatever you wish in the middle and did not cut the triangle, this stuff would transmit to an interested person. But you just presented your awful attempts as if to say, "Look at that dumpster over there. It has worthless garbage in it." And the entire meaning of your statement is to point to worthless garbage and say it is your worthless garbage. Why should the reader care? Even if you stay true to pattern and attach a happy ending to it? The happy ending would be for you and only you, not for the reader to feel anything. There is no relationship to your reader in your comment. Please understand, I'm not bashing you. I'm pointing to a lesson that took me years to learn. It's like the Bloomberg article in your post. NAFTA is a relationship like a marriage. That author apparently never heard of the word, divorce, and sounded just like a man explaining to his miserable wife (the one who is getting ready to leave him, but he doesn't believe it) that their marriage could never end because of yada yada yada--while all of his examples are irrelevant to the lady. Anyway, food for thought. Partake if you wish. If not, no problem. I, for me, find this story triangle to be a powerful tool. Michael
  35. 1 point
    Well, having worked in the Gov't this "news" aboot Amazon's 'Secret' cloud service doesn't ring any conspiracy bells for me. Contracts like this happen all the time. But tracking the argument something doesn't compute here for me. The original objection was Bezos using contracts, tax schemes, or what-have-you to do something nefarious or unethical. Providing a legitimate example of Amazon having a cloud service contract with the CIA is not in the same category, and can't be used as an example for "Bezos using <sic> government money"... why? Because this is a standard, legitimate contract that when I put my Objectivist hat on, violates nothing of the trader principle and ethics. Why? because this happens all the time, the gov't needs confidential channels for services provided by public companies. Believe me, it's just standard practice in the IT/networking world and having a contract with the gov't. So, I'd say this one has debunked for any wrong-doing.
  36. 1 point
    It occurred to me that I may have misunderstood Billy's meaning. In referring to "Jonathan's homework," Billy, did you mean not the homework that you think that I have neglected to turn in, but the homework that I've assigned to you? If so, sorry for the misunderstanding above. However, my response still remains the same in essence: It is not homework that I'm giving to you, but rather the reality of the requirements of science, and the dictates of the onus of proof. It's not some irrelevant or tangentially silly burden that old Jonathan has come up with to waste your time, but the core of the issue at hand.
  37. 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
  38. 1 point
    Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist needs his head examined.
  39. 1 point
    Yup. The entire gag appears to be to see if the disguise will fool the target, whom we've chosen because we hate him or her because we've all invented a Narrative about him or her that we want to believe. Isn't it funny that the disguise fooled who we hate? Tee hee hee! And then, after a while, the big payoff: let's insult the guest and see how long it takes before he ends the interview! Tee hee feckin hee! It wouldn't be funny regardless of the targets' politics. It's just bitter and lacking in any imagination whatsoever. J
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
  42. 1 point
    I saw this panel discussion in person. About 24 hours later the CEO of ARI said that there were already 130,000 views of it on You Tube. I may comment on it later.
  43. 1 point
    William, Sure. I went to my orders completed page at Amazon and typed in "conspiracy" just to make this fast. Four books came up, but I have more (I always haunt used book places, too ). I can't list those right off the bat because I have a crap-load of books and I didn't make a separate section for "conspiracy theory" like I did for Rand, writing, Scientology, evil (a few very interesting books ), religion, etc. Here are the 4: Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Complete Dossier by Brad Steiger and Sherry Steiger The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer History Decoded: The 10 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time by Brad Meltzer and Keith Ferrell Demented Agitprop: The Myth and Madness of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theories by Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones On a related note, I recently went through the audiobook: Secret Societies: Inside the Freemasons, the Yakuza, Skull and Bones, and the World's Most Notorious Secret Organizations by John Lawrence Reynolds. And, if I'm not mistaken, I have the print version called "Shadow People," but I can't seem to find it. This is a VERY GOOD book and it has a slant you would like. I have the following in my Amazon wish list. (sigh... I'll get to them some day--I have a way-too-long wish list up on Amazon ) The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory by Jesse Walker Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History by David Aaronovitch American Conspiracy Theories by Joseph E. Uscinski There are a bunch of others without the "conspiracy" keyword. In fact, I'm trying to remember where I got these titles from. I often look up books in the footnotes of books I am reading and, if I think one is interesting, I try to find it and usually put it on my wish-list if it is for sale at Amazon. I have a Scribd account and I probably have some things separated over there, too. That should do for now. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this though. I have other priorities right now (creative writing stuff). btw - I just put Suspicious Minds on my wish list. Michael
  44. 0 points
    Mike Rothschild has some analysis ...
  45. 0 points
    Oh, you're paving the way for the statists but you aren't a statist. Look, let's let CO2 happen; it's going to anyway. More plant and animal life AND the planet qua planet isn't at risk. Just the polluting humanoids. Let them eat their just desserts. Now correlate your supposed scientific position with us living in an interglacial period likely to end sooner rather than later. Maybe saving humanity--is that what you're about?--is pumping into the atmosphere all the CO2 we can as fast as we can? Your essential triteness has been noted.If you're honest here you are trite and if dishonest you're that and trite. Now about a ad h. There is a ad h and simple ad h. The latter is not a logical fallacy. --Brant
  46. 0 points
    That is correct. It’s quite futile, too, it’s a loser topic. No one cares or even knew who this particular M Brotherhood terrorist “journalist” was until last week. ”Get irate, everyone!! The new crown prince, who Cheeto said is better than the last one has killed a terrorist we are calling a journalist. Isn’t that horrible of Cheeto? Don’t you hate him, now? Well, don’t you? Hello? Anyone listening? Hello”
  47. 0 points
    Bu buh but skeptical instruments of reasoning are bad. Skepticism and criticism are acts of kooky science denial. Deniers, deniers! No? Did the rules change at whim again? J
  48. 0 points
    We still don’t know what happened with the mass shooting in Vegas, so please forgive me if I give a zero chance we ever find out who Khashoggi really was or why MBS took him out. Heres the key fact: When these things happened back when SA was solidly deep state, none of this pearl-clutching occurred, and the military arms sales to SA continued unabated. You know about this event because SA is not on their side anymore.
  49. 0 points
    Florence will prove, for once and for all, that catastrophic nightmare man-made climate change is real, and that we need to surrender all of our freedoms right fucking now. It’s going to be SO excitingly horrific! We’ll be able to use the deaths and the destruction of property to emotionally manipulate people! It’s electrifying. It’s even arousing! I feel a thrill going up my leg. Come on, Florence, roll!!!! Kill!!! Destroy!!! Yippy!!!! https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/business/julia-seymour/2018/09/11/washpost-hypes-category-6-future-hurricane-florence J
  50. 0 points
    OWeMyGaWD! No! Snow in Africa! It's the Predniset's fault. He's racist and a science denier.