Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 02/11/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Ted (in) Lieu (of fill in the blank) pulled out his cell phone and on the Congressional record called Candace Owens a ****er lover. I saw it !
  2. 2 points
    You've probably heard of the concept "man cold" or "man flu." I've heard it mentioned in pop culture for a few years now, and have been observing it with interest. And I just experienced it firsthand for the first time. I'm not talking about the cold, but about certain women's reactions to it. The glee. The superiority. I have a cold. I'm still up and about. I've taken the standard over the counter remedies, but I'm coughing and sneezing, my nose is running, and my voice is a bit rough. Despite going about my life as normal, I've been ridiculed by a few women whom I barely even know. They're very excited about mocking me for having a "man cold," even though I'm not actually displaying the behavior that defines it (staying in bed, doing nothing, moaning -- in other words, being affected by it, where women with colds are said to not be affected, or are strong enough to not allow colds to affect them). It's very psychologically fulfilling to them to verbally kick men when they are experiencing illness or weakness, and to derive a sense of superiority from doing so. There's no accompanying interest in science or comparing symptoms and ailments. It's just pure psychological thrill of belittling the enemy. Anyway, it reminded me of this thread, and the excitement that Billy seems to experience in focusing on right-wing conspiracy believers, but not so much left-wing conspiracy believers. Seems to have a lot of similarities to the "man cold" relishers. J
  3. 2 points
    Her white nationalism is settled consensus.
  4. 2 points
    Yeah, but I've heard that she loves Hitler. They say that she's a black white-nationalist, and was caught on tape admitting that she wants another holocaust. Why would they say stuff like that if it wasn't true? Huh?
  5. 2 points
    Second that. Partly second that. Jon's form of trash talk doesn't bother me in the circumstances in which he's using it. He doesn't use it indiscriminately. I'd use a different metaphor for William. Insidious poison. Slithery. Never quite coming out with a thing. Insinuating. I've seen that for some while. Ellen
  6. 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.
  7. 2 points
  8. 2 points
    Vote fraud in Texas and Illinois elected the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960. Massive vote fraud has made California a state completely dominated by the Democrat Party. If not for the Electoral College California would have made that criminal bitch Hillary President. Whether the Electoral College will do the same next time is problematic. It could give the Senate to the Dems. I find your naivete hard to get my brain around. ---Brant
  9. 2 points
    Jonathan, It's funny. When you ask for repeatable scientific results re Climate Change, you always get blah blah blah and they never use the term "repeatable results." It's like going into a small eatery and saying, "Do you have an ice cream cone?" And the person says, "Here's some tasty steamed octopus." You ask, "What about an ice cream cone?" The person says, "Look at these green beans and mashed potatoes. How big a portion do you want?" "But I want an ice cream cone." "Well, you've come to the right place. Our mac and cheese is amazing." "Don't you have ice cream cones?" "Only stupid people think we don't have hamburgers." "You really don't have ice cream cones?" "True believer idiot. The dinner rolls are right in front of you. God, some people..." He throws a stack of menus in your face--ones that do not list ice cream cones... And on it goes. It's amazing to watch. Michael
  10. 2 points
    I love "on the sidelines" of #TrumpKimSummit. He's negotiating peace with a nuclear—armed country, ending a state of war that has existed between us for the last 70 years. While doing that he scores a deal for $12.7 billion of planes, then goes out for a smoke break with Phu Trong and a few of the Bamboo guys and returns with an additional $2.9 billion dollars. Best President ever.
  11. 1 point
    Ellen, The fizzle I see comes from the academic or "bearer of the sacred torch" people and organizations in the Objectivist world. Out in the real world, there are countless A-Level entrepreneurs, celebrities, experts, etc. who openly acknowledge a Randian influence on their lives, although most only do this when asked. They don't volunteer it. I don't agree if you mean the hero's journey pattern is not present enough to be a feature in Rand's fiction. I see it all over her fiction. I also don't agree that it is required for what you said, although it is one of the more potent forms of storytelling in human nature. Let's put it this way. Using the hero's journey pattern certainly helps. In fact, in many of the screenwriting books I have read, they give examples how it raised a mediocre story to a higher level of success. But there are several other patterns (boy meets girl, comeuppance, etc.) that are equally powerful, inspirational and long-lasting. But I'm not being a contrarian qua contrarian and we are certainly in no contest. I want to hear what you have to say, so please elaborate on what's in your head before I entrench. On a different note, I got to looking into a work that has strong genre parallels with Atlas Shrugged (and I can just hear the howling when I mention it ). The work interested me because I got to thinking, how do you transmit a social-ideological message in fiction that is strong enough to make people act on it? And that led me to one very strange corner: The Turner Diaries by white supremacist William Luther Pierce. (Google it and you can find a copy for free, it's in the public domain. I prefer not to link to it.) This work inspired the Oakland City bombing (which was similar to a scene in the book and the book was on Timothy McVeigh when he was apprehended) and several acts of domestic white power terrorism over the years. Well, I just read the work. (What a trip! Note: I'm not going to discuss the racism in it here. I'm focusing on something else.) I finally understand what one has to do to convince readers through fiction in a way that is far more powerful than propaganda. The plot parallels are strong enough between The Turner Diaries and Atlas Shrugged to detect the patterns. The outer plot template (of both) is the destruction of the entire social order (and the scapegoats of the insider ideology) by an initial small group of insiders (they grow over time), but the inner drive of the "good guys" (if one can call them that in The Turner Diaries ) is reverence for an ideal, a form of worship. This is true in both books. The emphasis in on reverence, not hatred as is constantly portrayed by critics. (There is hatred, but it's a byproduct, a dirty job that has to be done, so to speak, not a prime spiritual mover.) Apropos, this reverence even leads the protagonists to experience emotional states of trance-like transcendence like Dagny listening to the Halley concerto, or Earl Turner reading the semi-sacred secret book after his interrogation. In this genre (as evidenced by these two works), pure outraged hatred is reserved for those who have seen the light and "betrayed" their ideal. The "lesser aware" scapegoats are--as in ancient religions--considered more as morally unclean and subhuman than evil. Some subhumans get to the level of evil, but the vast majority are cattle and merely unclean things that need to be eliminated (or redeemed or whatever) so that the ideologically pure insiders can have and spread their utopia. Whether the scapegoats are blacks and Jews (as in The Turner Diaries) or collectivists and altruists (as in Atlas Shrugged), their story role is identical. (The violence against them isn't, of course, but that is beside this point.) The scapegoats are on one rung of hell, the unclean rung that causes disgust and repulsion more than hatred, and those who have seen the light and walked away are far lower where metaphysical hatred resides. The "betrayers of their race" get "the Day of the Rope" in The Turner Diaries and Robert Stadler gets destroyed by his own machine after becoming a virtual outcast by the good guys in Atlas Shrugged. Also, don't forget that trainload of normal people who get blown up in a tunnel while their minor betrayals are listed. In this genre, a few from the unclean rung of hell break out and become leaders of the unclean, so they are more dangerous villains in the story than most of the individuals among the unclean masses are. Sometimes they are called evil and they always need to be fought and destroyed, but the real hatred is reserved for insider believers who no longer believe. No amount of nastiness is too much for them. That premise--people of reverence blowing up the world of the unclean, with fallen apostates as the lowest of the low, not simply good versus evil--is how one conveys a long-lasting impactful social message through a novel. Of course there has to be an ideology spelled out and so on, but that premise is the workhorse that carries everything else along and ensures a social resonance with a wide audience. Apropos, notice how Rand always denigrates the power of evil in AS? That's an indirect form of saying evil is metaphysically unclean instead of potent. I wrote some thoughts to a friend in an email earlier today and I'm giving them below (with a few corrections). Note, none of what I'm saying in this post should be considered as written in stone. I'm thinking out loud, so to speak. But I know I'm on to something and it's important. I'm obviously referring to The Turner Diaries at the beginning below. That's plenty for a good brain-chew for now. I fear some people will need to chew and chew and chew to not choke on the comparison of common ground between AS and TTD. Michael
  12. 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?"
  13. 1 point
    Objectivism is not a top-down philosophy like Marxism, though Rand wanted it to be but as in freedom. She correctly centered it on the ethics but those ethics are her hero's not the great unwashed. Hence the prevalence and perseverance of the Judeo-Christian ethics and conservatism with its cultural gravitas albeit intellectually bankrupt. On the individual level the philosophy must have liberated millions of Americans from guilt respecting the pursuit of self interest. If we take a standard human model his self interest is much broader and deeper than her model. Thus Objectivism fizzles as a cultural force. As for politics, this country has to die of old age or be destroyed before it can be reborn in freedom. That's because of entitlements. This doesn't have to happen soon. We are entering the age of empire, not in respect to foreign relations for we are already there but in respect to Americans. --Brant
  14. 1 point
    This video is not about autism but about vaccine studies. It is about real science vs fake science. The purpose of real science is to find truth. The purpose of fake science is to peddle a product. When there is a product to peddle a red alert should go off in your head. A vaccine qualifies as a product to peddle.
  15. 1 point
    What do you call yourself philosophically? A fan of Rand? An Objectivist with a capital ‘O’? An objectivist with a lower case ‘o’? A Toleration-ist? An ARI guy? An Atlas Society gal? Cultish people have been called Rand-roids and other derogatory terms. Is there a “secret home of objectivists” hidden in the landscape? Is there a Galt’s Gulch in the mountains, or on an island? Of course the co-founder of Wikipedia and a former moderator of objectivist forums, is Jimmy Wales and he is a fan of Ayn Rand. Peter Some notes from: Objectivist movement From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . . . . The claims of cultism have continued in more recent years. In 2004, Thomas Szasz wrote in support of Rothbard's 1972 essay, and in 2006, Albert Ellis published an updated edition of his 1968 book that included favorable references to Walker's. Similarly, Walter Block, while expressing admiration for some of Rand's ideas and noting her strong influence on libertarianism, , described the Objectivist movement as "a tiny imploding cult.". . . . Rand stated that "I am not a cult", and said in 1961 that she did not want "blind followers." In the wake of NBI's collapse, she declared that she did not even want an organized movement. Jim Peron responded to Shermer, Rothbard and others with an argument that similarities to cults are superficial at best and charges of cultism directed at Objectivists are ad hominem attacks. Objectivism, he said, lacks layers of initiation, a hierarchy, obligation, cost or physical coercion: I cannot see how a disembodied philosophy can be a cult. I say Objectivism was disembodied because there was no Objectivist organization to join. The Nathaniel Branden Institute gave lectures, but had no membership. You could subscribe to a newsletter but you couldn't join. Objectivism was, and is, structure-less. And without a structure there cannot be cult. [...] The vast majority of self-proclaimed Objectivists are people who read Rand's works and agreed with her. Most have never attended an Objectivist meeting nor subscribed to any Objectivist newsletter. In 2001, Rand's long-time associate Mary Ann Sures remarked: Some critics have tried to turn her certainty into a desire on her part to be an authority in the bad sense, and they accuse her of being dogmatic, of demanding unquestioning agreement and blind loyalty. They have tried, but none successfully, to make her into the leader of a cult, and followers of her philosophy into cultists who accept without thinking everything she says. This is a most unjust accusation; it's really perverse. Unquestioning agreement is precisely what Ayn Rand did not want. She wanted you to think and act independently, not to accept conclusions because she said so, but because you reached them by using your mind in an independent and firsthand manner. Meanwhile, Shermer, who considers himself an admirer of Rand, has tempered his judgment. Contrasting Leonard Peikoff's "heavy-hammer approach" with the "big-tent approach" of The Atlas Society, Shermer told Ed Hudgins: "If we're close enough on the same page about many things, I think it's more useful to cut people some slack, rather than going after them on some smaller points. I don't see the advantage of saying, 'You shouldn't have liked that movie because ultimately, if you were an Objectivist, you wouldn't have.' I guess it was those sorts of judgments made by some Objectiv[ists] that I objected to." end quote
  16. 1 point
    Peter, We can go all the way in public the other way, too. Would a group hug help? You rock. I mean it. I love your happy-go-lucky manner Your postings of old archives are treasures you keep serving up. They are like special unexpected presents from the past, a pure delight. If you and Jon were in the military, I would see you in provisioning and Jon as a front-line warrior. To do both jobs well, different temperaments are needed. I doubt many people in these two positions in actual military situations find the same jokes funny, get angry about the same things, hang out, get drunk together, etc. But they all fight for the same side. When he trash-talks you, I see it mostly as misunderstanding where you are coming from, what you have actually read, etc. Sometimes I see him attribute you with positions I know are not yours. But you've been pretty good at clarifying over time. I don't know if the following will help, but here goes. I'm reading a fascinating book right now called The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History by Howard Bloom. Here is a quote I find pertinent. If we understand these four archetypes, alpha male, bully, joker and nerd to be tendencies that can mix and match with each other and can mix with other archetypes, meaning they are not all-encompassing delimiters, we can see them in almost all ensemble stories from TV shows like NCIS on up to superhero movies, soap operas, even love stories. Your tendency on OL is to be a good-natured joker sidekick who provides a ton of value. Jon's tendency is to be a fiercely loyal bully--and his greatest loyalty is to his principles. William went from joker keeping people honest to nerd. Everybody kicks him around nowadays. And he earned it. As to Ellen, oddly enough, I see a dose of alpha male as her animus mixed with some archetypes that are not in these four like rebel and, believe it or not, mother-figure. I'm not going to keep going, though, because I'm going to end up pissing off everybody. Michael
  17. 1 point
    I don't go on William's blog or at least rarely, sometimes by accident, and I don't pay that much attention to him anyway, so I have no clue about him "not denying it" or somehow making light of pedophilia.
  18. 1 point
    Sometimes, those who accuse others of a crime or a psychological aberration are diverting attention from those very faults in themselves. So for instance calling someone a girl, or a homo, an asshole, or a pedophile is because of the thoughts of their crimes or aberrations MUST REMAIN HIDDEN! Is that the case with Letendre? edit. What a rotten human being.
  19. 1 point
    I saw that Patton Oswald is still working in Hollywood and on TV. IF he freely admits to being a pedophile how is this possible? It makes me wonder if the "confession" was really him bragging or someone pretending to be him on the internet, which should be a prosecutable crime. Anyone who calls someone else a prosecutable crime like pedophile, and it is a lie, they should be sued for defamation of character. And what would Tony Soprano do? "Take me out to the ballgame. Hey Hun, where's my bat?" Perhaps Patten not speaking about this incident may be because he is trying not to glorify his accusers or give them airtime. If anyone has anything verifiable on the Oswald case, I would be interested. I hope OL's management makes sure no one is called something they are not, here on OL. Were those messages from Patton Oswald that were posted on OL, or were they made up? If Smollett loses his job with Fox for alleged crimes which are now NOT be prosecuted can he get his old job back . . . or can he sue Fox? So why did Jussie pay two immigrants to attack him? I saw copies of the checks and they were real. Was it for gay sex? Damned if I can figure it out now that Smollett, if not exonerated, is still crying about his innocence. Are the two African brothers ashamed of the "possible," "rough" sex acts? That's just a theory. Peter
  20. 1 point
    Don’t celebrate the perversion of my country’s system of justice quite yet, pedophile. 😆😆
  21. 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.
  22. 1 point
    Why is Maddow going to prison? For corrupting "reason" or for overblown emotionalism?
  23. 1 point
    I agree it is odd that few people have heard of him, outside of scholars. I'd say Comte observed and approved of the sacrifice sickness always visible in society, and uplifted the concept (and named it). An idea precedes, outlives, and is larger than the thinker. Like philosophers do, he had spin-off influence on others e.g. on Marx (!) and Mill and Spencer. Robert Campbell has a very good essay in OL somewhere, on Comte and altruism, wrt Rand's take on them. He confirms she got it precisely right. Wiki: Influenced by the utopian socialist Henri Saint-Simon,[4] Comte developed the positive philosophy in an attempt to remedy the social malaise of the French Revolution, calling for a new social doctrine based on the sciences. Comte was a major influence on 19th-century thought, influencing the work of social thinkers such as Karl Marx, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot.[6] His concept of sociologie and social evolutionism set the tone for early social theorists andanthropologists such as Harriet Martineau and Herbert Spencer, evolving into modern academic sociology presented byÉmile Durkheim as practical and objective social research.
  24. 1 point
    "Full-blown" altruism is a rare qualifier by me, I use it only in relation to Watson's "pathological altruism" (aimed at the Prog- Left), cleverly recognized even by that non-O'ist.... Since many people are not cognizant of altruism's wider and deeper nature, innocently taking it at face value. i.e. Just being kind, helpful or considerate to others, so getting sucked in. Then, the many non-innocents know also that invoking "altruism" and their distorted versions of 'empathy' unfailingly submits others' minds and actions to their will. And there we see the SJW's, media, and all the rest. If there's any doubt about the atrocities of altruism/otherism, I suggest to see it in the context of interference in others' lives, minds, freedom. That "interference" we can take to any degree and kind. (Not reasoned argument/persuasion, of course, which we notice is logically, the loathed target of today's altruists). "Interference" goes counter to acknowledging the general "other" as having an inalienable value in themselves and their lives, (as well as their potential value to one - far secondarily). To wrap up on others and our relations with them, there are those specific individuals to whom one gives one's attention, affection, respect, cooperation (etc.etc.), based on one's actual - known - value in them. But, in every sense, either using others by this now, totally implanted 'morality' as the instruments to your gains -and/or, being used by others for their ends, is where *sacrificial* altruism laid down by Comte and accurate to him comes in. Rand didn't invent the concept nor use the term idiosyncratically, she simply saw straight through its premises and effects. Comte reported on and admired what he saw in how societies function, but was blind to (evaded) much underlying self-interest, and he didn't estimate the benevolence factor, but developed his ethics out of the citizen's necessary, selfless duty ... all for all. One huge blob of selflessness. You see the results of his observations and ethics at work still (and worse than ever). Giving money, the material and physical side of altruism is just the iceberg-tip - some inexperienced Objectivists miss the big context and then could make ludicrous errors, like objections to helping out in emergencies, which you've pointed out. I am not unhappy I've not long been too privy to as much " knuckleheadedness" in this community as you. Naturally I've seen some and will see more, but I accept them as others' struggles and mistakes, where I have my own to concern me. When it distracts from the important things, some ignorance of the back-story and others' doings and statements is not always a bad thing. ;) Michael, to me the key to understanding the essential nature of altruism is in one definition by AR: "surrendering" the self, "self-abnegation". Which is the precondition for its survival. Clearly, sacrificers can't operate if there aren't self-sacrificers - especially when they are restricted from using physical force. The two go together, occasionally running in the same person, like now. What it means to 'negate' oneself, one's mind, i.e. one's rational standards, values, independence, happiness and all knowledge, is to enter degrees of gradual self-sacrifice that could be thought of as 'self-loss'. At the extreme I strongly suggest that the NZ killer who sacrificed others' lives to his notions of *a cause* (in his head, a lesser value in favor of a greater one, therefore, a gain - he might justify) is both self-sacrificial and sacrificial, the ultimate altruist. Even the most irrational person cannot escape his most basic knowledge of what basic humanity and its basic value is, and by discarding their humanity and his own, he's "negated" himself from human being to beneath an animal (which, pre-conceptual and not therefore consciously 'selfish' nor self-sacrificial, can't select alternatives among its acts).
  25. 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
  26. 1 point
    It's worth it dude if you want to spoof the world. Wayne's World. Wayne's World.
  27. 1 point
    I'll do my best. In regards to who and when, Joseph Fourier first hypothesized about the greenhouse effect. He noted that the atmosphere must in some way be absorbing, or inhibiiting, invisible light (IR) from leaving the planet (approx 1820's): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier Arrhennius in 1896 would be the first to hypothesize that changing co2, including by burning fossil fuels, could enhance the GHE. He also estimated that doubling co2 might lead to approx 5C change in temps! This is seeming a bit high with current research, but I find how close his number is to out estimates to be truly remarkable. https://www.lenntech.com/greenhouse-effect/global-warming-history.htm In regards to your comments about changes in the experiment (changes in equipment and observational biases), Zeke has a great writeup here in regards to they why, where, when, who of adjustments. The end result: adjustments don't impact the overall global trend in any significant way. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records I can't say for certain that all algorithms are publicly available for download, but some are for sure. For example, here is NOAA PHA algorithm. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ushcn/pairwise-homogeneity-adjustment-software Whether the algorithm is publicly available or not, I can say with a greater degree of certainty the they provide literature explaining their methodlogy: http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-summary.pdf Raw and adjusted data are also available through NOAA and other collection agencies. Some people have gone so far as to create their own individual algorithms from scratch: @caerbannog666 has tons of plots on his page and his algorithm is available for anyone to download, go through, and compile on their own. Or if using other's work isn't your thing, come up with your own methodology. As another example of individual analysis, @BubbasRanch has done his own work, and is most definitely on the skeptic side of the debate. However, his results, albeit he doesn't communicate it well in my opinion, agree rather well with NASA results. He also never explicitly compares his results in a side-by-side fashion as @caerbanogg666 does, but I would still personally vouch for his work, just not the implications of what he says it means 😉 That's all I have time for at the moment. Let me know if you have questions about any of this content, or where which questions I can focus my next responses on. 1-2 direct questions at a time is much easier to field and respond to than 5-6 huge open ended questions. Thanks.
  28. 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
  29. 1 point
    Here is a perfect example of why I am not going to engage much with this person. I said I was not interested in him. I don't like his bullshit bullying manner of showing up out of nowhere, bossing people around and giving out homework. I refuse to talk to people like that. I never show up anywhere the way he did. He interprets my objection to him as not showing interest in science. Legend in his own mind and so on. It's just bullshit. No wonder these people are losing the climate change moral panic. (btw - I vote. Millions of people like me do, too. If we have any say about it, these jokers will never compel us to do or fund anything. There's an object lesson there, too, but I doubt it will be learned by these kinds of folks.) Michael
  30. 1 point
    It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly. J
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    I don't see how Facebook is going to avoid the MySpace effect and tank to a ghost of its former self. When the stampede starts (actually it has started, but it's way early in its early stage), it's going to be quite a show. Get this: Facebook Bans Zero Hedge and this: Facebook takes down Elizabeth Warren ads calling for breakup of Facebook Rather than refute, Facebook is banning. And it thinks banning will work to silence major figures in our culture. And once the people at Facebook get into this habit, I predict they will go haywire. They are pissing off people of all persuasions. Man oh man... Michael
  33. 1 point
    Not supported by the evidence, Jon, sorry. By 'confession' do you mean the note of retraction posted at Infowars and cited above? I guess what I don't understand is why one might believe the retraction and apology cannot cohere with the truth. In other words, if Corsi says "I relied on a bunch of shit that has been retracted," then why is that suspect? Is it because Corsi himself is suspect? So, do you think Corsi is entirely making up what he relates in the retraction/apology? This seems to imply that Corsi was tortured. Where is the evidence of torture? Jon is a Mueller defender -- he says Mueller is a white-hat. Does that factor in to your own opinion? Speaking of zealotry.
  34. 1 point
    I'm for Trump and what he's doing--that is, by and large. The left has thoroughly outed itself in its viciousness and stupidity and ignorance with deep state augmentation. If he's not re-elected because of voter fraud this country will descend into civil war. --Brant
  35. 1 point
    Former Trump White House lawyer calls Mueller 'American hero,' says probe is no witch hunt.
  36. 1 point
    tmj, I remember a time when who what when where why and how were taught as elements of clear expression. Now the thing is blurting out cryptic opinions that I call "cheap profundity." It makes the blurter feel good, I guess. If there is an idea or something specific that led you to share your wisdom with us, I would be interested. I'm serious. I'm curious. What are you talking about? Michael
  37. 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!
  38. 1 point
    And so is this, but it is sooooooooooooo wrong... Michael
  39. 1 point
    Jon, Well, they have put their biggest and best sleuth hound badasses on Q. They found that President Trump's pastry at Mar-a-Lago is full of Q. Seriously. Trump Employs QAnon Believer Elizabeth Alfieri as Pastry Chef at Mar-a-Lago Pastry chef Elizabeth Alfieri bakes cakes and posts about her belief in a conspiracy theory that Democrats are pedophiles. I stand in awe... I thought this was an Onion article at first, but it isn't. This is their grand gotcha. I can just see them snarking down their noses, "Take that Trump. We've got the pastry goods on you." LOL... Wanna bet the guy Will Sommer now expects a Pulitzer? Maybe write a follow up on Russian Bear Claws in the Trump administration? LOLOLOLOLOL... Oh, the pain... the pain... What a band of idiots these lefties are. Michael
  40. 1 point
    I was very born and raised in Tucson. I've been here continually since 1995. I know why it snowed in Tucson today. I SAW IT COME DOWN! A dreadful sight, but glorious! The record snowfall in this hot city is 5 inches, I've been told. Gone with the Sun. On nearby Mt. Lemmon is the southern most United States ski facility. But don't come here for the skiing, go to Flagstaff. Or, better, COLORADO! Next time ask the expert. ---Brant I didn't tell you why it snowed in Tucson, that takes money I don't have (yet) but you do--I hope we have a street in Tucson called "Tyndall"--I lived on it just west of the University of Arizona as a medium-sized boy (my old home destroyed by high-rised student housing--SOB!) in the early and mid-1950s I swear upon the altar of God (eternal hostility over every form of tyranny over the mind of man) that every word I've written here is true (My grandfather, Irving Brant, is responsible for that inscription inside the Jefferson Memorial)
  41. 1 point
  42. 1 point
    Man, does Carpe Donktum nail it. This is America... For sure. And this is the Fake News Media... And this tweet is The Art of the Meme. (That would be a great title for a book. ) btw - I've known Carpe Diem means "sieze the day" ever since Dead Poets Society. What I didn't know is that Carpe Donktum bastardized some Latin to say, "seize the donkey," and by that, he means the Democrat donkey. Michael
  43. 1 point
    Jon, They never stop, either. These people are blinded by their own cockeyed core stories. And those who are not blind are evil manipulators. When reality does not fit their story, they try to alter reality by deception. And here's the rub. Even the blind know they are deceiving when they are deceiving. Man, are there a lot of these suckers (both types) in the fake mainstream media and fake mainstream social media. Michael
  44. 1 point
    Michael, I do not understand words and sentences. Orange man bad. J
  45. 1 point
    As Valentine's Day winds down, here's a little offering, by one Leapy Lee, as a sendoff: There's a boy a little boyShooting arrows in the blueAnd he's aiming them at someoneBut the question is at who.Is it me or is it youIt's hard to tell until you're hitBut you know it when they hit you'Cause they hurt a little bit.Here they comePouring out of the blue ...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRCvTe-BsNc
  46. 1 point
    Lionel says the Deep State's coup as laid out in McCabe's new book did not succeed in getting rid of President Trump for one reason only: the Second Amendment. You know, after seeing the video, I agree. He's right. Especially in his example about Egypt. At one time, Hosni Mubarak had ordered his military to go house by house in Cairo, round up people and arrest them. The military refused and told him to do it himself if he wants it done so badly. They said too many people have Kalashnikovs in their homes and that would be a suicide mission. So transpose that to the massive amount of Trump supporters who freely exercise their Second Amendment rights. What would they do in the event of a Deep State coup by bogus charges, etc.? Lionel says that prospect is what kept the coup from spreading among former Obama insiders and their sympathizers. But let him explain. He does a great job of it. Michael
  47. 1 point
    Interesting article about Liddle’ Adam Schitt. “You talk about compromised and easily coerced. Shifty Schiff is nothing but a political hitman who’ll do anything his hidden masters tell him to because they have that much dirt on him. No Congressman will ever expose themselves as much as Schiff has unless they have been bribed or blackmailed to. And oftentimes it’s a combination of Pedogate blackmail and irresistible bribery that keeps them doing their dirty deeds.” — Intelligence Analyst and Former U.S. Military Officer ”KEY POINT: As Schiff sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, he issues many baseless assertions and ridiculous speculations about the contrived Russiagate which have been ricocheting around the world for months now. He knows that he’s being used to start a shootin’ match with Putin’s Russia but shamelessly advances one false allegation after another. As more information comes out — that there really is no evidence of a conspiracy — and that Russia did not hack the 2016 election, Schiff doubles down on any tenuous thread he can pull on to somehow reinvigorate his fraudulent prosecution of Trump and Russia. Joseph McCarthy, himself, would be mortified at how much traction the fictitious narrative spun by Schiff has gained. And virtually everyone knows it, especially the fake news producers throughout the MSM.[1]” http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=116341
  48. 1 point
    To all of you ideological purists on the right out there who are also anti-Trumpers, what don't you get about the following? Trump: "America Will Never Be A Socialist Country"; "We Were Born Free And We Will Stay Free" President Trump said that in the State of the Union Address and he said that last night in the El Paso rally. People who have been with President Trump for a long time got this a long time ago. You didn't. You never did. I doubt many of you ever will. Some of you even preferred Clinton. Hmmmmm... Michael
  49. 1 point
    Welcome, Sir Billy! I hope you enjoy OL as much as I do. Michael
  50. 1 point
    I have excerpted some paragraphs from the article below. If you want a real hoot, read the comments at the bottom of the article, but not with a full mouth. THE INNER WORLDS OF CONSPIRACY BELIEVERS Those who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracy beliefs are generally suspicious and inquisitive, a new study suggests. By Bruce Bower June 20th, 2009; Vol.175 #13 (p. 11) Shortly after terrorist attacks destroyed the World Trade Center and mangled the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories blossomed about secret and malevolent government plots behind the tragic events. A report scheduled to appear in an upcoming Applied Cognitive Psychology offers a preliminary psychological profile of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracies. A team led by psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London identified several traits associated with subscribing to 9/11 conspiracies, at least among British citizens. These characteristics consist of backing one or more conspiracy theories unrelated to 9/11, frequently talking about 9/11 conspiracy beliefs with likeminded friends and others, taking a cynical stance toward politics, mistrusting authority, endorsing democratic practices, feeling generally suspicious toward others and displaying an inquisitive, imaginative outlook. “Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas,” Swami says. His conclusion echoes a 1994 proposal by sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden in New Jersey. After conducting random telephone interviews of 347 New Jersey residents, Goertzel proposed that each of a person’s convictions about secret plots serves as evidence for other conspiracy beliefs, bypassing any need for confirming evidence. Goertzel says the new study provides an intriguing but partial look at the inner workings of conspiracy thinking. Such convictions critically depend on what he calls “selective skepticism.” Conspiracy believers are highly doubtful about information from the government or other sources they consider suspect. But, without criticism, believers accept any source that supports their preconceived views, he says. “Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel says. Conspiracy thinkers share an optimistic conviction that they can find “the truth,” spread it to the masses and foster social change, Goldberg asserts. Over the past 50 years, researchers and observers of social dynamics have traced beliefs in conspiracy theories to feelings of powerlessness, attempts to bolster self-esteem and diminished faith in government. Much as Swami’s team suspected, beliefs in 9/11 conspiracy theories were stronger among individuals whose personalities combined suspicion and antagonism toward others with intellectual curiosity and an active imagination. A related, unpublished survey of more than 1,000 British adults found that 9/11 conspiracy believers not only often subscribed to a variety of well-known conspiracy theories, but also frequently agreed with an invented conspiracy. Christopher French of Goldsmiths, University of London, and Patrick Leman of Royal Holloway, University of London, both psychologists, asked volunteers about eight common conspiracy theories and one that researchers made up: “The government is using mobile phone technology to track everyone all the time.” The study, still unpublished, shows that conspiracy believers displayed a greater propensity than nonbelievers to jump to conclusions based on limited evidence. “It seems likely that conspiratorial beliefs serve a similar psychological function to superstitious, paranormal and, more controversially, religious beliefs, as they help some people to gain a sense of control over an unpredictable world,” French says.