Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/30/2019 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. 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
  5. Why "coordinated national" voter fraud? Is that all that they're looking for? They're okay with voter fraud on a less-than-national level? In Trump's criticisms of mass-mail voting, and his suspicions of Democrats' motivations, did he specify that he thought that it would only happen on a nationally coordinated level?
    1 point
  6. Billy refuses to discuss climate science with Jonathan at his very own climate blog here at OL because Billy is incapable of discussing science or anything technical. That is why he posts links, instead of making his own points in his own voice. That is why he has never responded to my chemtrail posts. It is all over his little head. He can sneer. And he is expert at tricks like "Jon has yet to present any persuasive evidence regarding chemtrails." How convenient. No response in years. But Billy can't respond, you see, as there is no persuasive evidence in my lengthy posts (that go over his he
    1 point
  7. All Polls are Wrong. I don't see why any present poll or polling average should give comfort to the Democratic campaign, because it seems like the real campaign hasn't started. About the only areas that might be of concern to the GOP campaign are seemingly 'iffy' contests for the Senate. I will put down a marker here of so-called swing state polls, and return once all the votes are counted in these (maybe) key races. Arizona -- today Real Clear Politics aggregate of surveys suggests that Democrat Mark Kelly is ~11% in front of the incumbent GOP senator McSally. Colorado -- RCP's pag
    1 point
  8. TG, I agree. Sometimes reality is a bitch to swallow. But swallow it we must. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed. And one reality is that a war is far more important to win than any single battle for solidifying a system of government. In our system, a crime must be committed before it can be punished. The people who voted for their local governments in the current trouble spots in America elected assholes who crapped all over the police. No wonder they are walking off the job or doing things half-assed. The only way to fix that is let the crimes be committed, make all due ap
    1 point
  9. Watching your Pantyfa scum friends get severely mistreated by order of my President is going to be so, so sweet.
    1 point
  10. 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
  11. An article by Adrienne LaFrance, "The Prophecies of Q," in the Atlantic.
    1 point
  12. I see. Jon unwittingly reveals his dominant motive for visiting OL. It is not to learn or discuss, but to hurl crap and insults at other people he hates and know he is a "snake." He is so disappointed that I won't join him in his hurling crap and insults at BaalChatzaf, who may not even read them. Foul-mouthed Jon's pseudo-self-esteem remains in need of a big boost. He'd have a much better chance of a boost by begging Jonathan, MSK, or Ellen.
    1 point
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. No, fabricator. I didn't fall for an "illusion" and said nothing about being being dazzled. I dared the conceptually and mechanically inept Jonathan to explain why what happens does happen. He failed. You and Brant also didn't explain why or even feel it was needed. I'm not surprised. None of you saw the significance of the center of the moving coin. Déjà vu. Analysis and Solution Why does the moving coin make two rotations? From start to end the center of the moving coin travels a circular path. The radius of that path is twice either coin's radius. Hence, the circumferenc
    1 point
  16. Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?
    1 point
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. The original MSK classic, along with my addition of Brad at the end: Enter Brad: "I apologize for my waiter’s temper, sir. Hi. I’m Brad. I’m the owner and cook here. Now, if I overheard correctly, you would like an ice cream cone. Is that correct? Yes? Well, I don’t want to go though the trouble of making one for you, only to then discover that I’ve wasted my time because it’s not what you really want. So, let’s first explore any grounds for disagreement that we might have. Please answer this question: Octopus is the primary ingredient in Tasty Steamed Octopus, yes o
    1 point
  22. Did I say equal parts dumb and insincere? Three here now! Holy shit this is the best.
    1 point
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. You said that someone mentioned to you the next ice age has been put on hold. I agreed with that statement, trying to give a bit of insight as to why. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Read the paper if you are still confused: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494
    1 point
  26. Perhaps time for self reflection if these are common responses to statements you make. Still waiting on evidence of your assertions, by the way.
    1 point
  27. Is or isn't the burning of fossil fuels driving up co2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
    1 point
  28. I'll address her conspiracies when she finds Russell's teapot.
    1 point
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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
  32. 14 of 17 climate models published between 1970 and 2001 accurately projected future warming. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w
    1 point
  33. What is one legitimate question on the table?
    1 point
  34. From 'Big Think': Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.
    1 point
  35. No content. Try rephrasing as a reasonable question.
    1 point
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. The jottings you deleted yesterday were titled "The #QAnon phenomena, as explained by various outlets and commenters". Did you mean the plural, or do you not know that "phenomena" is plural? Many phenomena attend the Q phenomenon. To my mind, Q is the ultimate boondoggle for rational inquiry. I've been directed a few times to separate "Q" from "QAnon," and I will probably make the same kind of differentiation errors. Are you taking questions about "Q" and/or "QAnon"?
    1 point
  39. "We" didn't put any "heat" into the oceans. --Brant ". . . here comes the sun . . . ."
    1 point
  40. "Q" is on a tear about supposed shenanigans in the March primary elections in California ... "Q" is not a top-level analyst.
    1 point
  41. 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
  42. But yeah, let's trust the anonymous Q source who posts to racist lair of scumbags run by a pigfarmer. "Objectivism, anyone?"
    1 point
  43. This is a stupid, ugly question. The accusation you slop around is utterly without warrant. That you repeat this accusation casually is on your head, Jon. A malicious repetition of disgusting charges poisons this forum, which you might understand were you not an unreasoning lunatic. You seem proud of this smear, which is also disgusting. You reap what you sow ...
    1 point
  44. "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
  45. Millerism and the Great Disappointment. For Patreon supporters ...
    1 point
  46. Billy, You've got a pretty good handle on your new vid toys there. Fun stuff. But, ugh, please explore lighting. And you don't need to invest in soft boxes or umbrellas with modeling lights. Just consider turning your current light so that it's facing the other way (away from you), and not shining on you directly. Bounce the light off of a wall in front of you to diffuse and soften it. Wall not close enough? Then clamp a foam board to an old mic stand from back in your band days, and bounce the light off of it. You're welcome.
    1 point
  47. The President has things to say about Roger Stone and justice. Something something "planted into Team Trump" in 1999 by mumble mumble ... Stone is a plant of the Kabbal woop woop.
    1 point
  48. 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
    1 point
  49. Capes and Dollar Signs???????? Good grief!
    1 point