Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/03/2019 in Blog Comments

  1. 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?
    2 points
  2. 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 .
    2 points
  3. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
    2 points
  4. Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump Poll: 79 Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen‘ breitbart.com/2020-election/…via @BreitbartNews They are 100% correct, but we are fighting hard. Our big lawsuit, which spells out in great detail all of the ballot fraud and more, will soon be filled. RIGGED ELECTION! Percent of Trump Voters Believe ‘Election Was Stolen’Politico’s 2020 Voter Priorities Survey shows that a vast majority of Trump voters believe the election results are fradulent.breitbart.com November 24th 2020
    1 point
  5. And dontcha know Tony B has a Q clearance , and for some reason he told Tucker that his sister-in-law, who unfortunately passed away after a battle with cancer died at 6:38 . So that's weird.
    1 point
  6. Polar Amplification just keeps rolling on ... Siberian heat wave is driving massive wildfires, sea ice melt in Arctic With Fires, Heat and a Cyclone, Arctic Breaks Melting Record
    1 point
  7. The forest, the florist, the trees, the logs, the oriented strandboard ...
    1 point
  8. A note on human trafficking.
    1 point
  9. As anyone can see, my tweet from yesterday -- the same exact tweet, WSS_Memorial/status/1270423908131323904 -- the tweet from June 9th now shows an embedded screen-capture image of an OL comment published today, June 10th. https://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/blogs/entry/756-in-the-matter-of-q/?do=findComment&comment=3999 "Reconcile."
    1 point
  10. I read this and the more I went along, the more I kept thinking it was so beside the point. Talk about irrelevance on steroids. But I ended up reading the whole thing. I took a look at the author, Marc-André Argentino. He's a crank funded by globalist establishment think tanks. He tries to come up with cutesy sounding terms like "infodemic" and so on. His main interest is how to find ways to shut down free speech, especially on the Internet. His main smokescreen, from what little I looked through search results, is fighting the QAnon dragon. He has even proposed that QAnon is a publi
    1 point
  11. I've been wondering if whoever started "Q" was taking a page from L. Ron Hubbard's book and setting out to found a religion. Ellen PS: I haven't read the article yet. I anticipate that it will be sneery and "sophisticated"-superior in tone. I'm simply reacting to the article's title, which echoes my own question regarding "Q's" long-range intent.
    1 point
  12. 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
    1 point
  13. I think it was late 2017, wasn't it Billy? When you discovered I had been reading Q. Maybe early 2018, but very shortly after Q started posting. Your reaction was mocking, of course, but I sensed a little bit of fear, a little bit of anxiety, like you actually believe it yourself but just hate all the implications, because you have chosen your side and it is opposite the Q side, etc. Your reaction told me to look even more closely and take it even more seriously as possibly real. Thank you. And now, in the middle of a scamdemic, after months of basically total radio silence from you, you
    1 point
  14. Bob was exhibiting signs of Alzheimer's along with his characteristic Aspie obliviousness. I started to wonder toward the end of last year if he'd died, and I took to periodically checking his User Profile to see if he'd signed in. He did sign in on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, and then again on February 6. Ellen
    1 point
  15. 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.
    1 point
  16. Atmosphere won't hold much water vapor without non condensing greenhouse gases since the saturation pressure is highly temperature dependent. Remove the non condensing ghg and h2o would condense, rain out, surface would freeze, increasing albedo, reducing the insolation. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-vapor-saturation-pressure-d_599.html
    1 point
  17. Red herring. We aren't taking about how the climate change before the industrial revolution. I've already covered the mechanisms that lead the planet in and out of ice ages. That mechanism is in the wrong sign (negative) to explain current changes and there is not record of changes happening as abruptly as they currently are. Go back and read what I told you about Milakovitch Cycles. Funny that you didn't think my reply was applicable then.
    1 point
  18. To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.
    1 point
  19. That's become painfully obvious. What science education is coming to that we get something like Brad thinking he's being scientific. Also: Greenhouse gases don't "impede" energy transfer. They act by re-radiation, not by interfering with convection. Also: MSK, I think that TMJ was being facetious. Ellen
    1 point
  20. I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked. And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwin
    1 point
  21. 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.
    1 point
  22. No, I really don't. Whether humans have caused the increase in atmospheric co2 is a key component to whether or not humans are driving global warming. But I guess you know that.
    1 point
  23. 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
    1 point
  24. Trump says 'nothing's a hoax' about climate change A few days later https://www.socotoday.com/blog/2020/01/21/davos-2020-trump-says-us-will-join-1-trillion-tree-planting-scheme-day-one-live-business/ He even signs legislation that gives subsidies to companies to mitigate climate change by sequestering or reducing carbon dioxide. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/02/05/new-carbon-capture-technologies-just-waiting-for-irs-green-light/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2018/07/08/how-trump-signed-something-that-could-actually-mitigate-climate-chang
    1 point
  25. It's not a test. It's about whether or not there is agreement. Have human emissions caused atm co2 to rise from 280-~415ppm?
    1 point
  26. So just to be clear, you can't answer whether or not human emissions have increased atm co2? Do you think that might be a requisite for moving forward in the discussion in determining whether or not humans are responsible for warming? This is why it's pointless for me to address all your questions.
    1 point
  27. Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming. You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming.
    1 point
  28. When you are incapable of discussing science and incapable of even discussing your favorite nature.com article, just tell your interlocutor he is confused. Billy, I really can see now what you see in Brad.
    1 point
  29. Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?
    1 point
  30. Apologies, page 14 of the pdf or page 266 as it's labeled in the paper. And I'd suggest taking your focus off the red herring and stick to the simple question. Did he or did he not claim rising co2 would cause the planet to warm?
    1 point
  31. I'll address her conspiracies when she finds Russell's teapot.
    1 point
  32. Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNiciivbjnAhUH7awKHTVnCdoQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Cm1sb1Pjyd2Sph86m9hd0
    1 point
  33. Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) that changes in co2 was a linked to global temperatures. He hypothesized that increasing co2 would warm the planet. His sensitivity parameter was on the high side. Given the resources he had, I think his number is remarkable. He also stated that the industrial revolution would drive co2 levels up. But I think you know this already. So how does this not fit the criteria of your question?
    1 point
  34. Most would consider a mad extinction bad. There previous mad extinction too over 10k years to occur, it's not an overnight or even single generation event. More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.
    1 point
  35. These are your words. I have you a list of hypothesis. They have the years the predictions were made. The would be falsified had they not come true. What else is there to answer in regards to your question?
    1 point
  36. What is one legitimate question on the table?
    1 point
  37. Jonathan, That's a very interesting question. I don't think he's expressing anything at all. I think he's collecting specimens and sorting them according to a custom-made taxonomy embedded in his vanity. There's a story at the end, I'm sure, and William is the hero of that story. That is, he's a flawed hero, but mucho hero-level heroic nevertheless, striking blows for truth and social justice where ever an oppressed victim may be found, and saving the planet for The Children and whales and shit. That's for later. For now, I feel he is in list compiling mode most of the tim
    1 point
  38. My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy.
    1 point
  39. Government job? Or government-tied? (I couldn't resist. ) Michael
    1 point
  40. Brad is on Twitter, doing Brad Schrag activities: https://twitter.com/BradSchrag/with_replies Of course. Are you hoping to have him return for a talking-to? That may not be the most alluring prospect for him ... but in any case, here's a recent comment retweeted by Brad Schrag, in which pioneers of climatological inquiry are noted. The names may mean nothing to a reader if the reader hasn't cracked open The Discovery of Global Warming.
    1 point
  41. Pithy. If you are a fan of skeptical inquiry, Poker & Politics should be in your Twitter feed. Glory, glory, Halleluja ...
    1 point
  42. Chemtrails for the win. "It's SCIENCE!"
    1 point
  43. Q sez not a lot, but has some Twitter suggestions in five new drops ... "Everything's Coming Up Roses ...!"
    1 point
  44. Whoever or whatever "Q" is, he or she or they are probably enjoying the break, not having posted since December 29 2019. This break has had zero effect on propagation of the 'cleaned-up' version of the mighty conspiracy-of-all-conspiracies ... from Mike Rothschild: The article is here. As "Q" might say, The 'silent' war continues.
    1 point
  45. "Q" is on a tear about supposed shenanigans in the March primary elections in California ... "Q" is not a top-level analyst.
    1 point
  46. 1 point
  47. It looks like the person or persons who post as Q has been watching TV and spending time on Twitter today. For a 'top secret' insider, he or she or they doesn't appear to have any insights not available via OSINT.
    1 point
  48. "Fuck off, pedophile." The QAnon movement is chockful of anti-semitic garbage -- based on the wildest bullshit peddled by the Q-collective itself. If the correspondent wasn't so opposed to reason, he'd figure that one out on his own.
    1 point
  49. Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes, since I primarily tweet from mobile, some interpretation is required. bed -> need So where to start. Are we in agreement that the GHE is the reason that the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K, or do we need to back track further?
    1 point
  50. Capes and Dollar Signs???????? Good grief!
    1 point