Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/20/2020 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
  2. 2 points
    Not at all dramatic. I really didn't know my Dad until I went to live with him and my step mother when I was 16. I was born in Tucson in 1944 and he had already decamped back to NYC by the time of my first retained memories age two. A newspaper reporter with a genius IQ (189) he became, I learned, a bad alcoholic in 1943. Arrested for a DUI and after a short time in jail he attempted to attack a city cop with his cane on the street and the powers that be told my Mom he had better get out of town, so he did. He was almost put on trial for his pre-WWII activities and was summoned to Washington to testify before a Federal Grand Jury. He flew, which was hard to do in the middle of the war. There was a trial that lasted for over a year with 12 defendants. The judge died and it never went to a jury. (See "A Trial On Trial"--I think that's the title.) You can read about John Gaede pre war in "Under Cover." Dad told me the author got a lot wrong about the people on it including him but was good depicting the various personalities. He was anti-war, pro German--but not a German-American Bund. He wrote two subscription newsletters and had a couple of hundred subscribers and spoke at Madison Square Garden. There a cop grabbed his cane and tried to force it open to reveal a sword, but there wasn't a sword. These were America First anti-war rallies. I know what the old Garden looked like as I went there in 1962 for an anti-communist Christian rally. If Buckley was right Rand was probably there merely because of her anti-communism, but then I didn't know her from a hole in the ground. I was only 18 and helped collect the money.We piled it on a table in a back room. That Swartz (sp?) guy who ran it really knew how to take it in. (to be continued)
  3. 2 points
    Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
  4. 2 points
    A mere three years? When government secrecy classifications routinely last ten, twenty, even fifty years, if indeed they're ever lifted at all? That's entirely unrealistic. Ye gads, Lyndon Johnson put an entire category of background sources for the Warren Commission under embargo until 2063. Disgorging such records can take generations. Many such exposés thus become timely whenever they're released. Fortunately, the Net and electronic infiltration tools are opening up more such archives, formal and informal, than ever before. Julian Assange of Wikileaks — now openly stalked for assassination by U.S. "Defense" Department operatives — is one of the true heroes of our time.
  5. 1 point
    Very briefly, sir, do not debate the Democrat candidate. It will be "moderated" by fake news Democrats who will attack you viciously and give your opponent every privilege and honor, a trap to goad you into justifiable anger. More importantly, you should say that Democrats are despicable, unqualified to debate. People can vote for them. Fake news can praise them and promote their fitness for office. You don't have to appear on stage as an "equal." Screw them. The only debate worth considering is a Lincoln-Douglas smackdown, no moderators. Let the Democrat candidate speak first, maybe twenty minutes or so, then ignore her. Wash, rinse, repeat for two hours in a ticketed venue with good acoustics, perhaps in Florida. Tickets by lottery. Press gallery limited to camera operators, no journalists. Only one debate event. No "apple box" for Bloomberg if he's the Democrat candidate. Midget Ross Perot was dignified enough to stand on his own two feet, a head shorter than Clinton and Bush. Unfortunately, I don't think you'll be challenged by Bloomberg. Civil strife in Milwaukee will push Michelle Obama forward in a badly disrupted Democrat nominating farce. I don't think you can beat Michelle, so it behooves you to consider the numerous blessings of expat private life. You served your country at a time of historic malaise, made it possible for men to remember the meaning of liberty and justice, sadly too little too late. Not your fault. I blame Paul Ryan, a seething Deep State, felonious Obama officials, and the fake news Establishment. Screw them. You fought like hell. Now it's time to spend more time with Barron and Melania, and enjoy every day of your honorable golden years. If you get bored, build something. .
  6. 1 point
    When I was a boy, I had a disease that required me to eat dirt three times a day in order to survive. It’s a good thing my older brother told me about it. onelinefun.com
  7. 1 point
    Fuck ‘em, kill ‘em an’ eat ‘em.
  8. 1 point
    To quote Liz Crokin from the Instagram embed above in Jon's post: Does it matter whether he's telling the truth? It matters to people like me, people to whom the truth is important. On the other point, I'm in my right mind... let me see to make sure... yup... I'm in my right mind. And do I think it's funny? Let me see again just to make sure. Yup. It's funny. I love to laugh when I see authoritarians getting bent out of shape. I love to laugh at them and their power lust when they are bent out of shape. Man do they look goofy when they get pissed. Notice that I actively fight pedophilia, the elitists, and the things these people now want to attribute to McAfee as if these things were true. But, to these people, if these things are not true, they want to attribute them to McAfee anyway. To quote Crokin again in this context: Does it matter if he's telling the truth? To Crokin it doesn't matter. She just said so. Oddly enough, I like Liz Crokin, especially when she does to Luciferian authoritarians what McAfee just did to authoritarians of another stripe. But I will never bow down to her. Ever. That's even more rigid when she gets in authoritarian mode. Ditto for anyone who thinks like her. Fuck authoritarians. Michael
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Here we go. This is Basic Persuasion 101. 1. Do something outrageous to generate attention. 2. Let the outrage boil for a bit to generate audience. 3. Redirect to true target. People teach this shit. President Trump uses this shit. And other people get taken in by it. All... the... time Michael
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Mr. Bernstein invites people to call him a prostitute at AndrewBernstein%2Enet/2019/10/a-tribute-to-carl-barney Reviewed here: Andrew Bernstein’s Tribute to Carl Barney Not much new in the first two thirds of the article. The last third updates the lawsuits against Barney and his schools.
  13. 1 point
    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
  14. 1 point
    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.
  15. 1 point
    To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.
  16. 1 point
    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
  17. 1 point
    How do you know so much while scientists know so little? --Brant
  18. 1 point
    Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.
  19. 1 point
    Jon, President Trump just retweeted this: Michael
  20. 1 point
    We do actually. Because nature has actually been absorbing some of our emissions from the atm. We have emitted far more co2 than how much co2 has actually risen. We are responsible for the full increase.
  21. 1 point
    Let's see... Superbowl Chiefs win, SOTU address killed it, impeachment acquittal... Now for more breaking news. Michael
  22. 1 point
    Oh, brother. You aren't addressing what I said. You just shifted the discussion. I really thought you were a lot smarter. Let's just say you are, but you aren't using your smarts. Looking for smarts. --Brant
  23. 1 point
    I'm trying to start at the beginning so we can pinpoint a specific disagreement. And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless. But thanks for acting as if I hadn't already stated that.
  24. 1 point
    Is or isn't the burning of fossil fuels driving up co2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
  25. 1 point
    When spouting government conspiracies of control, the burden of proof is on the spouter.
  26. 1 point
    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?
  27. 1 point
    I'll address her conspiracies when she finds Russell's teapot.
  28. 1 point
    You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?
  29. 1 point
    No content. Try rephrasing as a reasonable question.
  30. 1 point
    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 time. There's a catch I think he doesn't see, too. Lists get awfully boring unless you do them right. ABT works really well on lists. See here: Narrative Is Everything: The ABT Framework and Narrative Evolution by Randy Olson. ABT means And, But and Therefore. A quick example: Here is List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, and List Item 4, and List Item 5, and List Item 6, and List Item 7, etc. Boring boring boring.. BUT Try this: List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, BUT Opinion or Conclusion or Other List Item 1, and Other List Item 2, and Other List Item 3, and Other List Item 4, but Opinion or Conclusion, THEREFORE list items with but and therefore are far more interesting than those with just and. Once William gets the hang of it, he might start peeping his head out again from his clam shell and showing he exists as a person. For now, though, adding to lists is all he's got, poor thing. (Believe it or not, Olson came up with this trying to sell climate change. However, it works like gangbusters for selling the opposite. If the climate change people won't pick up this tool made by one of their own and use it, I sure will. It's a great tool. ) Michael
  31. 1 point
    Jonathan, The answer is social and pure value judgment, not rational. They'll kick his ass right out of the Chosen People club if he treats this issue with true intellectual seriousness. The club is more important than the truth. That's why the intellectual arguments from these people consistently sound good, but when examined are not good. Once in the club, one does not need to make sense. One merely needs to dazzle with bullshit and snark a little for proof. In fact, making sense is the surest way of getting thrown out. The storyline abides... Michael
  32. 1 point
    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. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.
  33. 1 point
    Jon, LOLOL... Who needs a gold toilet to shit on progressives? Michael
  34. 1 point
    You think you are winning? You are not winning, because You will. Never. Have. A gold. Toilet. These people are coming UNGLUED. Here is Billy's favorite, Mike Ratschild, acknowledging his obsession with toilets (projected onto us, of course) ...
  35. 1 point
    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"?
  36. 1 point
    Pithy. If you are a fan of skeptical inquiry, Poker & Politics should be in your Twitter feed. Glory, glory, Halleluja ...
  37. 1 point
    Chemtrails for the win. "It's SCIENCE!"
  38. 1 point
    In late 2018, I attended an event called the 21 Convention. One big reason is that the founder is a guy named Anthony Johnson. He is definitely an Objectivist and has said so on his show The Red Man Group. He started the 21 Convention when he was in his teens and is now around the age of 30. Yaron Brook has also spoken at the 21 Convention in the past. During that time, he has re-invented his event several times. He initially invited men from the seduction community like Ross Jeffries and Steve Mayeda. He has also over the years focused on self-improvement, inviting fitness and business gurus like Drew Baye and Elliot Hulse. The conference has become more focused on becoming an anti-feminist or even a male supremacist conference. In 2018, it was clearly a RED-PILL conference. Unfortunately, Anthony has also shown some of the same narcissism that Rand showed. He has had quite a few bad breakups with speakers--most recently Rollo Tomassi and Richard Cooper. His breakup with Tomassi has been about as silly as the one involving Rand and Branden in 1968. Personally, I've taken Rollo's side in all this. He has gotten a lot of attention lately because of his upcoming 22 Convention. The 22 Convention is advertised as a "mansplaining event," with the goal of "making women great again." He has been getting a lot of coverage lately--almost all of it negative. Here are some samples: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-7838273/Make-Women-Great-convention-hosted-MEN-teach-attendees-ideal-women.html https://nypost.com/2020/01/02/mansplaining-conference-hopes-to-make-women-great-again/ https://www.dallasobserver.com/arts/florida-men-who-have-never-touched-a-woman-free-of-charge-want-to-make-women-great-again-11845861 Anthony's Facebook profile is here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100024606491279 The 21 Convention is here: http://www.the21convention.com/ The 22 Convention is here: https://22convention.com/ Here is what 21 and 22 Convention speaker Stefan Molyneux has said about all this: https://youtu.be/PbuuSKLVWr8
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    Good investigation from the BBC: How a boy from Vietnam became a slave on a UK cannabis farm
  42. 1 point
    Q sez not a lot, but has some Twitter suggestions in five new drops ... "Everything's Coming Up Roses ...!"
  43. 1 point
    Part 3--without comment so far. I haven't even seen it yet. But I know it's good. I've seen Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham comment on it this morning. That means it is going to get a bigger splash audience than normal. Michael
  44. 1 point
    Record number of Americans want to leave U.S. — and Canada is the top choice: poll New immigration rules make it easier for Americans to work and stay in Canada
  45. 1 point
    There's never a bad time to think about atmospheric physics. "How does it work?"
  46. 1 point
    No. If a person is moving at the same rate as an escalator hes essentially standing still. On the other hand if the person in the same example was wearing a wind suit and there was sufficient air moving over him to provide lift then, yes, he might fly. The plane in the example is not provided any lift to overcome gravity. The speed needed to gain loft is nullified by the counter rotating conveyor. The better question is why does it matter? https://blog.xkcd.com/2008/09/09/the-goddamn-airplane-on-the-goddamn-treadmill/ Holding my breath for merjets answer. ;)
  47. 1 point
  48. 1 point
    You have several times put your finger on the problem. We do NOT have Climate Science. What we have are climate models and highly adjustable models at that. Climate is the result of weather over an extended period of time. The underlying process is chaotic dynamics for which our best mathematical techniques are not fully adequate. We have not found to this day a fully sufficient mode of determining whether a Navier Stokes equation has even a numerical solution. Only in a few cases do we know the numerical solutions actually converge to a genuine solution of the equation. And that is just the start of our problems. There are many drivers to weather and climate. Among which are secondary and tertiary cosmic rays shows which influence cloud formation. Clouds are nature's window shades. The clouds have a central role in temperature control on the ground. I am not yet convinced that even the honest climatologists he eliminated purely natural drivers as the cause of the current warm era. Yes I believe we are in a warm era, just as the world was before the Little Ice Age 1300- 1750. The world gets hot (sometimes) and it cools off (sometimes) and in the past, humans had little or nothing to do with it. Having said all that, I am no fan of excess CO2. I want to see North America paved over with breeder reactors from coast to coast from from the Yukon to the Rio Grande. Preferably thorium breeders (which we know how to build) that will not produce nasty by-products such as plutonium. I want to see us generate so much electricity by nuclear fission that we no longer have to burn oil and coal. Oil is a rich chemical feed stock for useful polymers and we have enough oil for that use to last us until Kingdom Come. Also we can put those fucking Muslim bastards out of business by not buying oil and showing the Europeans and Japanese they need not burn oil. Imagine that., Starving Islam to death instead of firing guns and dropping bombs. What a lovely thought that is. Ba'al Chatzaf All exactly right. I worked in hydrocode modeling Age 22-24, then non-linear electrical modeling in materials Age 25-30. No mystery that there can be no science like they are claiming. The chaotic and non-linear nature of the problem precludes modeling beyond a short time period and they don't have the data or models to support even that. It isn't even the beginning of a science yet much less a "settled science". The APS needs to have Nuremberg Trials for tenture and funding. Dennis
  49. 1 point
    I find it humorous that people who doubt the 9/11 story are labeled as having a crazy imagination when actually, the official story of 9/11 is infinitely more far fetched than most other explanations, especially when we take into consideration the fact that previous US Governments have drawn plans up to use terrorist attacks against their own people to justify wars and have also lied about attacks on the US to launch wars. The only difference in this case is that people seem less inclined to accept that their government has lied to them (again). The government wouldn't lie to us, right?
  50. 1 point
    No, I haven't read the book, but I can't get worked up about the notion that somebody has found some new data or insight after all these decades in which the attack has been one of the most thorougly examined events in history. My policy is to give coverup and conspiracy stories three years to prove themselves, after which they become crackpot territory. The Watergate coverup and the charges against Alger Hiss pass the test. Pearl Harbor, 9-11 and the JFK assasination fail.