Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/26/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    There's an overwhelming over-abundance of more than enough information. And that's just in any single frame of the video. Consider all of the content of all of the frames, and there are multiple, layered, redundant means of determining whether or not any entity, attribute, action or effect seen in any frame conforms to reality. The space, the objects within it, and the motions are all precisely measurable. Then add all of the visual information from other cameras at other vantage points... Each participant on this thread who has commented on the visual evidence is right about some things, yet wrong about others. The issue is not that the visual evidence is insufficient, but that none of you has the technical knowledge to be making any conclusions, or to be dismissing anyone else's observations or concerns, or to be throwing accusations of kookiness or conspiracy theorizing at anyone who thinks that something in a photo looks a bit odd. J
  2. 3 points
    https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-milkyway-over-beaverhill-county-jestephotography-ltd.html Something a lil different than my Wildlife photography. Nikon Z7 mirrorless with a Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art series lens for Astrophotography.
  3. 2 points
    Last July Craig Biddle of The Objective Standard published “Regarding Carl Barney and Scientology” in defense of Barney. That didn’t satisfy some of his readers so a few days ago he published a Part Two, same webpage as what is now called Part One. I review it at: Barney Continues Telling His Story
  4. 2 points
    They're being softened up for committing ritual suicide. Ellen
  5. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  6. 2 points
    By Ron Unz, the latest in his American Pravda series: John McCain, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate “Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings” It’s long but the lucid style makes it easy to read.
  7. 2 points
    I'm not here to defend the morality of most self-proclaimed secularists (I should add, secularism is merely one political position, not a whole ideology in and of itself. Objectivism is a secular philosophy that promotes secularism, after all). I think you're going off topic. The reality is that "being good without god" is a significant question that many theists ponder. Natural Law provided an answer to that question. And Christians/Evangelicals never appealed to the state to enshrine their values? Evangelical Christianity in particular has been resolutely illiberal. They only defend classical liberalism when convenient for them, or when they're losing a culture war. When they're in power, they have shown a consistent tendency towards using the state to enforce their beliefs on others. Not that most members of the secular left are any better. But again, that isn't the point.
  8. 2 points
    Sunny Lohmann hosts a podcast featuring Ed Powell and Ed Mazlish: youtube.com/watch?v=995Riq8JdUo
  9. 2 points
    Many of them sincerely believe, it’s just that they want you to die, first. They want your home burned down and turned back to prairie. Then they can enjoy earth with a smaller, sustainable population. How many who oppose pipelines have turned off their pipeline? None. That would be suicide.
  10. 2 points
    One of the general differences between those on the left and right is that the right understands the left's views... You can see this with their parody and satire. Leftist characters are portrayed accurately, and sometimes, right-wing media creators can even explain the left's views better than actual leftists. The parody and satire created by leftists, though, is consistently egregious--like the description of Jussie Smollett's attackers, for example (pretty much every right leaning person knew it was bullshit immediately). Again, it's a generalization. Obviously not all right-wingers understand the left's talking points, but for the most part, they get it... while for the left, the opposite is true. They can't even conceive of what they are arguing against. So what you end up with is ignorant, and possibly stupid, people who the right is gently trying to point out as ignorant and stupid... which reaffirms the leftist's belief that people on the right are immoral (mean). Obviously accusing someone of being immoral is worse than accusing someone of being stupid... so it's insane. This is pretty much just venting... but it's really annoying that this is the case. Politics has become a chore where people with good ideas have to hold the hands of their attackers to help them see what they're missing.
  11. 2 points
  12. 1 point
    Altered Carbon. It's fiction, but posits some interesting conundrums around cloning and digitized human consciousness.
  13. 1 point
    No one knows at the moment how the impeachment process will end up, though OL members will generally have in memory the Nixon and Clinton impeachment efforts for use in comparing and contrasting. At the present moment, nose-counting wonks have counted noses, providing spreadsheets of current House members who have indicated they support an impeachment inquiry. There is enough to agree articles of impeachment at last count -- if the process gets that far (see also the Politico breakdown of impeachment-supporters). I'll add in links to extant discussion in varied front-page threads and beef up a rough timeline [over the next couple of days]. The so-called whistleblower's "whistleblow" has been allowed to emerge in slightly redacted form -- Dated August 12, 2019: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6430376-Whistleblower-Complaint.html -- this is what is being examined in the House right now. Previously ... I'll ask that folks who may join in commentary here keep the personal insults to a minimum, if possible. Refer to the OL Posting Guidelines, please. Keys to understanding what may come down the pike is ... what has come down the pike already. In other words, a list of names of interest from roughly 2014 until now. Ukraine is at the nexus of the foreign-policy muddle between the United States and Russia. Names and entities to keep track and/or place on a timeline range from (presidents) Yanukovych, Poroschenko, Zelenskyy to prosecutors-general Yarema, Shokin, Sevruk, Lutsenko. For a reminder of what Ukrainian corruption looks like, the palatial estate of former president Yanukovych, who fled the country during the showdown known as "Euromaidan." At the risk of alienating a few readers, I'll be referring to a few 'mistrusted' writers and outlets who have cobbled together various timelines and constellations of events. interpretations and spin. Any timeline will be necessarily limited, but the simpler ones can be double-checked for factual, 'on the record' events. There are a lot of factors to be accounted for, suggestions entertained and claims tested. The most expansive timelines will come after the first spate of tell-all books whose "pitches" will be landing on editors' desks this week. An objectivist hierarchy of conceptual knowledge is more like a database than a list or timeline, maybe. This is kind of a first wrong stab at how various states could be tied to a index/timeline. Open question: how do you best organize 'what you know' or 'what is claimed' about the last five years of Ukrainian-USA-Russia-EU events? Foreign policy and corruption Russian interests, actions, explanations Associated timeline of events Date Ukraine President Ukraine Prosecutor Person of interest Cases adjudicated, abandoned, avoided (in US and Ukraine Trump -- campaign actors / Ukraine policy Trump administration Ukraine policy Cases of international significance. Meetings, contact, employment, associated suspicions 2012-2017 Manafort-Ukraine Manafort FARA
  14. 1 point
    Um, who came up with the bullshit that the question about Parrish was about an artist trying to cash in on Rand's popularity? Was it Mark, or was he linking to someone else's site? Heh. Anyway, WTF? Slop. Never heard of Parrish? Um, okay, but even then, how hard is it to look up? And, seriously, how in the hell did the story get twisted so that Parrish, who preceded Rand, and enjoyed much more fame than she had, and still does, followed after her and was cashing in on her lesser fame? Is the rest of the article as sloppy? As for Minn's art -- eeesh. J
  15. 1 point
    MSK’s claim: “One of the most devastating effects of pedophilia on the culture at large is when people who practice it gain power and influence among the elites.” How would you say that is going, Korben? I ask sincerely. It has been a year and three months since you asked for proof and a lot of evidence has since come in about the elites and how abuse of children ties them together. You have followed postings here about Epstein, Bill Gates, Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard, MIT, etc., etc.? Are you as skeptical as the first time you heard the assertion? How would you rate the plausibility or the truth-status of the assertion today?
  16. 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
  17. 1 point
    German League Of Girls https://spartacus-educational.com/2WWgirls.htm In 1930 the Bund Deutscher Mädel (German League of Girls) was formed as the female branch of the Hitler Youthmovement. It was set up under the direction of Hitler Youth leader, Baldur von Schirach. There were two general age groups: the Jungmädel, from ten to fourteen years of age, and older girls from fifteen to twenty-one years of age. All girls in the BDM were constantly reminded that the great task of their schooling was to prepare them to be "carriers of the... Nazi world view". (1) ... Members of the BDM later recalled that they welcomed the extra power they had over their parents: "As a young person, you were taken seriously. You did things which were important... Your dependence on your parents was reduced, because all the time it was your work for the Hitler Youth that came first, and your parents came second... All the time you were kept busy and interested, and you really believed you had to change the world." (22)
  18. 1 point
    “We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power. We are in the business of trying to grab that power and return it to the people.” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) Link. Of course, "return it to the people" is a transparent cover for giving immense powers to Omar and a few like-minded with her to satisfy their power lust.
  19. 1 point
    Jon, Word has it Bolton was a rip-righteous leaker and that's why he was canned--the latest being leaks about meetings with the Taliban. Bolton's extensive media blast saying he quit instead of being fired lends credence to this idea. Bolton sure liked him some media... Michael
  20. 1 point
    The upside to suspending disbelief just long enough to seriously ponder and explore the things Michael points out is that you might come to understand big truths years before most everyone else. You will have to be brave because you may end up concluding that just about everything you know about the world you were born into is terribly, tragically, false. I went through it in 2015-16 and it was quite unsettling.
  21. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  22. 1 point
    "Former Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates may not be able to escape Epstein-gate after all, after it was revealed last week that the billionaire traveled with Jeffrey Epstein on his infamous 'Lolita Express' Boeing 727 in 2013 - four years after Epstein served time for pedophilia. "In addition to Gates - other famous figures who flew aboard the Lolita Express include legendary newsman Walter Cronkite, architect Peter Marino, and of course Bill Clinton, Naomi Campbell, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Prince Andrew. " https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-22/why-did-bill-gates-fly-epsteins-lolita-express-after-pedophiles-prison-stint
  23. 1 point
    Can you perhaps point to a specific moment when this idea of "equality before God" became important in Christian thought? Because for most of Christianity's history, the religion was considered to be perfectly consistent with absolute monarchy. Christian theology was used to justify the Divine Right Of Kings. Where would you suggest the "turning point" is?
  24. 1 point
    Jon, OK. When writing, I believed you (and others) believe that. Now you have asserted it is poetry. So you do believe it. You do! You do! Michael
  25. 1 point
  26. 1 point
    Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  27. 1 point
    William's power is only from our engagement of him. --Brant
  28. 1 point
    Final days of Seth Rich conspiracy peddling? Kevin Poulsen has a different perspective, based on the Mueller Report itself: Mueller Report: Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians Julian Assange repeatedly blamed Seth Rich, the murdered DNC staffer, for Russia’s leaks. The Mueller report shows that Assange was lying from the start. Exclusive: The true origins of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory. A Yahoo News investigation.
  29. 1 point
    Jon, We disagree on this. But, once again, that's what we're here for. Humans disagree. I'm fine with disagreeing. (Most of the time. ) Michael
  30. 1 point
    Very interesting. If you hover over someone's name it will tell you what they are viewing. I have blocked Jon but decided to engage him again. I can still read his "theories" by signing out and looking at content or activity. Jon was looking at . . . go see yourself.
  31. 1 point
    Although it is virtually-impossible to embed a Brighteon or Bitchute video here at OL (even with a Twitter sample), several dozen 'republishers' on the Youtube platform try to keep each of his broadcasts available. This is the slightly-longer version of the Bitchute video Michael linked to above.
  32. 1 point
    From: Jimmy Wales To: Atlantis Subject: ATL: David Kelley on civility Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:33:13 -0800. Here's a fairly long quote from David Kelley that is directly applicable to questions about why a civility policy is a good idea on a mailing list which makes an effort to be creative, open, and intensely intellectual. From “Unrugged Individualism:” The Selfish Basis of Benevolence. p. 38: The forms of civility, and the broader realm of manners, are therefore dismissed by some people as arbitrary. "Why should I confirm to arbitrary social standards? I am an individualist." But while the forms are conventional, what is conveyed through those forms is not. If my argument so far has been correct, then it _is_ objectively important to acknowledge each other's independence in some way or other, whether by saying 'please,' or 's`il vous plait," or by some gesture understood to have that meaning. It doesn't matter which forms we use to convey this, any more than it matters which sounds we use to express a given concept in language. But insofar as civility has a communicative function, it does matter that we use the same forms. Someone who does not practice these forms is rude. We can assume that his failure to comply reflects indifference to what the forms express (unless he is ignorant, as in the case of a foreigner). A similar answer can be given to the complaint that the forms of civility are inauthentic. "What if I don't like the present Grandma gave me and I don't really feel any gratitude? Am I not falsifying my feeling if I say _thank-you_ nonetheless?" The purpose of that thank-you is not to convey one's specific feelings about the gift, or the person who gives it. Its purpose is to acknowledge that it was a gift, from an autonomous person, not something owed one by an underling. (If Grandma wants more than this, and makes it clear that she really wants to know whether one liked the gift, then one should tell her, as tactfully as possible.) Civility, then, may be defined as _the expression -- chiefly through conventional forms -- of one's respect for the humanity and independence of others, and of one's intent to resolve conflicts peacefully_.
  33. 1 point
    Here's a little meme I just now slapped together. Michael
  34. 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
  35. 1 point
    Someone left that cake out in the rain. I don't know if I can take it, it took so long to bake it and I'll never have the recipe again... oh no......
  36. 1 point
    How long do you think it will take to forget the name of the judge overseeing this decision, I'm not even aware of the name now. Any bets that person retires in say two years, just to be safe, and lives remarkable well on a judge's pension (?) , or am I just too cynical.
  37. 1 point
    Altruism was appropriated by the totalitarians for moral justification for their idiological snarmniness and Rand countered with "selfishness" thereby justifying in her own way tyranny if tyranny be a value to whomever. The major flaw in her philosophy is its center in morality instead of politics and it's implicit and explicit morality. She was not wrong about rational self interest but she never recognized the nature of self interest in altruism. Of course, the religionists used altruism the same way the totalitarians did, to justify themselves and to control the subjugated and to subjugate. What has been obscured in this ideological warfare by its sheer bilateralism is actual human nature. The irony of the world of Atlas Shrugged is the sheer human destruction by the men of the mind going on strike is exponentially greater than anything the totalitarians have managed to achieve too date. Now I know I am mixing up my categories, fiction and non-fiction, and Rand declared she was trying to prevent a socialistic America, but Rand too was always mixing up those categories. However, man the individualist was also and always man the provider and man (man and woman, of course) the protector. Man and his (her) family. The irony is the Atlas bad boys were the heroes who let the other bad boys play just to practically illustrate in every way Rand could imagine how bad the bad boys and their policies could be to the USA. Not included, though, were anything like the Nazi and Communist genocides. Just good old Mr. Thompson and naked John Galt on the rack. That was essentially the end of her magnum opus. In her previous novel naked Howard Roark laughed. Roark led straight to Galt. This is why there is no Objectivist movement. The Objectivists are in Galt's Gulch. --Brant
  38. 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.
  39. 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.
  40. 1 point
    While we're asking stuff, I ask you to get a thorough psychiatric evaluation, and if you don't do it, I might call you such terrible names that you will go mad with terror and turn into a raving liberal. (Such are the heights of rational discourse on OL these days, apparently).
  41. 1 point
    Ooops, sorry, I just saw your post after what I posted what you see below. But I'll keep it up now for the record as we seek some understanding! ....... Michael - Assuming Jon is not a troll (you'd know better than I), he kind of make my point. Schultz sees far left Dems discrediting his party. Folks can point to the extremists and say "See these crazies! That's the Dems. I rest my case." So Schultz offers an alternative. David Kelley decades ago saw the dogmatic Objectivists discrediting the truly rational, open Objectivists. Folks could point to them and say "See these crazies! That's Objectivism. I rest my case." So David offered an alternative. Someone like Jon makes it easy for our opponents to say "See that crazy! That's Objectivist living. I rest my case." It is sad that after all these decades, these types are still infest Objectivist circles. I always appreciate Objectivist Living though I don't get here much anymore now that I'm doing more public policy. But keep up the example, Michael, of what Objectivism can be and should be!
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    which puzzle is that?
  45. 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.
  46. 1 point
    So today I had an interesting post on my twitter feed. A person looking to purchase a rights managed image for an add campaign. So I sent her my personal email via Message in order to get more details. i sent her a link to the image she wanted and ten minutes later BAM! https://fineartamerica.com/saleannouncement.html?id=9becce4a0811b1bc99e633e17bff67ee Kinda cool eh?
  47. 1 point
    I am glad you posted that. I was going to post Palmer's lecture. it is excellent and it deals quite well the difficulties in making decent models of climate. His discourse on the Navier Stokes equation which he likens to an array or Russian dolls (of decreasing scale) is first rate. The interesting and ironic thing is that the climate alarmists might be right (although they have not proven themselves so). I think good sense should prevail and we should really get busy transitioning our power producing technology away from those means which produce a CO2 overload. While I do not believe we we turn in Venus in the next century, the longer we put the task off the harder it will be to avoid climatic effects from CO2, CH4 and increased water vapor production. I think a steady business like program to develop non-combustion means of generating electricity will not only improve technology over all, but may be beneficial in terms of avoiding climatic extremities. In conjunction with such a technology progression I think stopping the Boys from Brazil from leveling the Amazon Rain Forrest and planting many many trees would be good for the planet.
  48. 1 point
    Technically Lindzen is correct. But blanket is a good analogy. Blankets keep your body from losing heat quickly on a cold night. The CO2, NH4 and H2O(g) slow down the rate at which IR energy is radiated into space. In effect they slow down the energy loss in the IR bands and make the equlibrium temperature of the earth with space somewhat higher. W.O. CO2 the temperature of the Earth with space would average around -15 deg C. With the amount of CO2 we have the a temperature that averages around 18 deg C. The CO2 absorbs energy in the IR band and radiates that energy to the surrounding cooler air and the ground. That accounts for the 33 deg difference. If the Sun went out CO2 or no CO2 the earth would eventually be at the temperature of space or maybe a little warmer because of some geothermal heat reaching the surface. The source of all warming on Earth is the Sun (ignoring the small geothermal output). Like all bodies at temperature above 0 K (absolute zero) it will radiate heat until temperature equilibrium with the surroundings is reached. It is the heat we get from the Sun that keeps us as warm as we are. Even if the doomsday sayers were right and the temperature of the Earth at the surface increased much further we would radiate out energy faster. This is the result of the Stefan Boltzmann law with says the rate at which body radiate energy is proportional to the 4 th power of the temperature difference between the body and its surrounding. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_equilibrium_temperature for details. This article has the mathematics of radiation.
  49. 1 point
    Oooh, 'folks like yourself who see only' blah. This is gibberish to me, Adam. You have no argument, just apparent prejudice. I would ask you to flesh out your gibberish, but I don't think you can. I don't think you can connect your brief angry meta-analysis to facts. Such is bigotry and ignorance and pretension to knowledge. That you cannot seem to understand the horrors of war in Syria that have led to the 'hordes' leaving, there is no rational fruit to discussion with you. As if some unknown-to-you actor has whipped up an invasion. Pitiful prejudice and irrationality to my eyes. This is no good, Tony. You seem uninterested in challenges to the propaganda of the video. So be it. I shouldn't bother with trying to reason along with you as long as you ignore the import of my previous remarks entirely. As you seem to assume "both rates [will] remain steady" in succeeding generations, I can't get purchase on shared cognitive ground ... But, maybe this is the crux: you do not know how many children a second-generation French Muslim woman will have. You haven't tried to research this question, instead falling back on 'surmises.' That may indicate something important about the way you think on this issue -- in terms of Them, of collectives, of innate Muslim fecundity, a fecundity that cannot be and is not influenced by the societies in which they make their homes. What other facts need? You haven't given any facts. I am wondering if I should file you with Jerry as supporting "They are breeding like flies" and believing the ugly alarmism of ISLAM TAKING OVER EUROPE ! This thread should have been lodged in the Garbage Pile, in my opinion. Ignorance, prejudice and bigotry are not what I associate with Objectivist Living.
  50. 1 point
    You can find a transcript of the video, with explanatory links, at The Corbet Report - 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory Without endorsing any particular conspiracy theory – some of which are loopy – Corbet makes the point that there's a lot more to the conventional 9/11 conspiracy than we are being told in the conventional news. To appreciate parts of his video you need to know a bit of history. For example, that girl tearfully testifying was testifying before the U.S. Congress in 1990, claiming that Saddam Hussein’s soldiers were snatching premature Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and leaving them to die. Her testimony was used by senators and the president as a reason to back the dictatorship of Kuwait against that of Iraq in the Gulf War – which the president wanted to do anyway. It later turned out the girl was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. Her speech before Congress was a theatrical act, a "public relations" stunt thought up by the firm of Hill & Knowlton working for the "Citizens for a Free Kuwait" – the free referring to a dictatorship as brutal as Saddam Hussein’s. The mainstream media repeated this fraud uncritically. Also the Jessica Lynch fraud, etc. Corbet’s point is that maybe they aren’t doing very well on 9/11 either. For some interesting articles about what happened on 9/11 see http://ARIwatch.com/Links.htm#9-11