Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/09/2009 in Blog Comments

  1. 2 points
    So does William discuss? No, he posts a link: Slide, slip, slither, avoid - and then whine if you're called dishonest And what the linked-to list is about, as Michael points out, isn't how to have a discussion but how to indoctrinate. Ellen
  2. 2 points
  3. 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
  4. 2 points
  5. 2 points
  6. 2 points
    Oh, I am staggered! It is a genius plot and This Story Must Be Told. And finally the world will see sex scenes that reflect Real Life and Right Values and Canadian Respectability, I can't wait! I must commune with my muse now -- the first lines of dialogue are coming to me -- oh, oh, ohhh!
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    On Reddit, a British person details a route out from 'the rabbit-hole.'
  9. 1 point
    Click on the graphic William posted and compare to the actual Reanalyzer graphic. William has played games. Also, re the issue of what he understands and what he doesn't, he ever so obviously doesn't understand what either the distribution or the sequencing and fluctuation of the figures at the bottom of the Reanalyzer series mean re the "humans are causing it" claim. Ellen
  10. 1 point
    Huh? Doesn't it have everything to do with this thread? As in, if we don't completely get rid of freedom, and if we don't immediately start punishing evil deniers, then, by the end of next week, the entire planet will be on fire just like that, followed shortly by everything being five thousand feet underwater due to all of the ice, everywhere, melting? J
  11. 1 point
    This has very little to do with the topics covered in this thread, but is a pretty cool piece of 360° video. More details on the item here: Watch a Raging Forest Fire Surround You in 360 Degrees -- you can use your mouse to change the angle of view.
  12. 1 point
    We need to take action now. And by "we," I mean Others™. In the short mean time, Billy, I know that you're not going to (can't) answer any of my previous questions about "the science" (tee hee hee), but might you have enough intellectual curiosity to offer up some thoughts on what "the science" should consist of? What are the ground rules? What is the methodology? Can you give some idea of how you think it should work, and maybe show that proposed method successfully applied to phenomena other than or in addition to climate? No? More steamed octopus? M-Kay. J
  13. 1 point
    Jonathan, I heard from lefties that President Trump is so much against science, he wants to fire the NASA scientists and do his moonshot and 5G stuff through prayer. Michael
  14. 1 point
    Oh my god, there's no time to waste? There's no planet B? Oh, no! Well, then, we had better forget all about the questions that I've asked which remain unanswered, and instead focus on action. We have to act now. It's an emerergency. Extreme measures need to be taken. And Billy is going volunteer to be the first. Thank you for your sacrifice, Billy, and for leading by example. J
  15. 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
  16. 1 point
    William made starkly obvious how dumb his thinking on climate issues is with this question: Ellen
  17. 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?"
  18. 1 point
    I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting. I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 1 point
    Jonathan, You've nailed so many correct points, especially about the rhetorical methods of these Meatball geniuses, I quoted the entire post. Basically the bullshit these pro-sky-is-falling climate crisis people serve up hasn't changed ever since Michael Crichton wrote State of Fear. Probably before, but I know it from this date because that's when I started following it. Crichton used to run a discussion forum back then (around 2004) and, after a gazillion posts between warring factions on manmade global warming, he simply shut down the discussions. I remember the phrase he used: "Same old same old." You called this new batch of Meatballs who showed up on OL "fanboy/activists." I think that's about right. Their behavior fits fanboy/activists to a tee. I thought the Brad Meatball was a bit different, but you know what convinced me he wasn't? I don't think he's very smart. I mean, if you're going to snark, at least don't be totally clueless. I told him I've been at this stuff for a long time. And Brad Meatball genius, posting on a forum I have run for 15 years with a published record of it all right at his fingertips, snarks back my own words, "And just because you say it, that makes it true?" That's retarded. You'd think the guy didn't have eyes to see what was right in front of him to ask that. So if snark is the genus, and his snark question is the conceptual referent, we have a specific differentia (retarded), so we can call this retarded snark. Part of your last paragraph bears repeating: You're never going to get that from the climate change crisis Meatballs. You are going to get the evasive techniques you so well described. I don't think that's ever going to change. Hell, even doing it the Meatball way, I asked him what GTE was and he was too caught up in his snark to answer. For someone who wants to be the enlightener of the rubes and lecture professor and says we have to start at the beginning, once again, that's retarded. It just is. I have no doubt the Brad Meatball has some learning, but like I said, this particular Meatball is pretty dumb. Michael
  22. 1 point
    Michael, you wrote, in the linked post: "This event hasn't been the first rodeo over here about this topic. One of our members, for example, Ellen Stuttle is personal friends with Richard Lindzen and her husband is a scientist who works in the field. She doesn't post much anymore, though. She's been suffering from an illness that precludes her looking long hours at a computer screen. " Rats. I'm going to have to break down and post something on William's blog, which I'm very reluctant to do. But, Michael, since you made that statement publicly, I think I'd best publicly correct an implication and a fact. I'm not "personal friends with Richard Lindzen" in the way your statement might sound - the kind of relationship where one chats about personal things, etc. I know him, through my husband. I've had conversations with him a number of times at conferences, sat with him, and his wife if she was attending, at the dinners, been to his home in Boston once for a climatology-conversation-geared get-together. I like him and I think he's enjoyed his exchanges with me. I respect him enormously as a scientist. He has a mind for physics, he could have gone into one of the prestige fields and been a big name. Instead, he went into climatology, from love of the subject. It was not a prestige subject when Dick went into it, and he never had any expectation of ending up a limelight person in a battle against scientific corruption. Larry, my husband, is not "a scientist in the field," i.e., climatology. He's a full professor of physics, with special interests in mathematical physics, symmetry, and relativity. He started studying climate issues in 2004, out of concern about the scare prognostications. He didn't need long to discover how shoddily-based those were. He's become a minor expert on climatology, just through his own studies, but he isn't "in the field." The main draw for him, which keeps him involved in climate disputes, is hatred for the scientific corruption and the creeping erosion of scientific honor. (The selling out on scientific integrity spreads to other fields, even to unrelated fields where researchers look the other way and give lip service to climate alarm because their universities are getting climate-related research funding, also from PC motives which can affect scientists like other people.) As to the physical problem which keeps me from spending long hours at a computer, that's correct, I do have such a problem, but it isn't the only reason I hardly post these days. There are also some nefarious doings I'm involved in helping with trying to counter (things related to reducing human population). I'm kept busy with explorings - which I don't want to talk about publicly. As to the rest of your post: Bravo! I think you did a really good job of explaining to Brad the situation regarding William's OL activities. Cheers, Ellen
  23. 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
  24. 1 point
    Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation. --Brant
  25. 1 point
    Which question? Lots to scroll through so yeah, I just kinda hopped in somewhere.
  26. 1 point
    So, that's a "no." But, please, do carry on with the endless song and dance, the heaps of inessential document dumps and scarily colored pictures in the place where the science should go. J
  27. 1 point
    I don't have a recipe that I've really liked. I've tried a couple from online sources, and they were kind of blunt, lacking in the subtle balance that can be had at a good Indian grill. I also tried a recipe that a relative from Wisconsin had sent, but it turned out to be kind of a scandinavian farm mom church ladies' recipe book interpretation of Indian food. Your addition of salsa is an interesting spin. I'll give your recipe a try. Thanks again, J
  28. 1 point
    Vote for democrats, dudes, so we can impeach Trump and the Koch brothers, and indict Rush Limbaugh, and fine MSK, bro!
  29. 1 point
    yawn... False conspiracy theories are the real problem say the elitists. Unending war for profit, mass surveillance, screwing the middle class with bogus crony corporatist schemes, using slave labor and calling it globalism, and so on don't really count to these folks, do they? Well, here's a fact for those who care about facts. Talking about false conspiracies have not caused even 0.1% or the enormous damage and loss of innocent life the elitist boneheads in the ruling class have caused. It's all the fault of the false conspiracies... So say the elitist boneheads on the way to the bank, their power centers and their occupations of unearned privilege. False conspiracies do one thing in reality, though. They make it hard has hell for the elitists to make people agree with them. They need the common people to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP GODDAMMIT. How else can they perpetrate their garbage and crony scams in peace? So now they are writing books asking nicely and with kindness for people to sit down and shut up goddammit. Fuck them. We don't need fewer false conspiracy theories. We need more. We need robust debate, always, not goddam gatekeepers who think they are better than others to the extent they get to tell all people what they can look at and consider. Most people are good. They are not cattle. They'll figure things out over time. They always have. And they sure as hell don't need idiots from the ruling class to tell them what to think. Here's a far better book by Tucker Carlson that looks at precisely the kind of person who wants such unearned power. It's No. 1 on Amazon right now. I've read it and it's one of the best books on current politics I have ever read. Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution And there's this. Tucker doesn't mean "selfish" in a Randian sense. He means it in a childish and thuggish sense. Hurting people on purpose and taking their things. My favorite observation by Tucker is the sheer incompetence of the current ruling class. He said there has never been a more incompetent ruling class in human history. This batch is just plain stupid. I agree. The've turned science into a religion, are now working on getting rid of due process and believing this is good, and so on. And not one of them can do a goddam thing of value. One video I saw elsewhere asked an interesting question. If you were stranded on a desert island, who would you want to be stranded with? People who wag their finger at you over gender identity crises, who call you racist every time you disagree with them, and so on? Or plumbers, carpenters, fishermen, and so on? Give me a conspiracy theorist any day of the week over an asshole elitist who wants to rule me because he thinks he's a superior life form. He's not a superior life form. He's a goddam fool who's time of cultural relevance is--thankfully--coming to an end... Michael
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
    Fun with recursion ... emphases added. Narcissism, definitions, utility, questions, cautions ... [...] I should mention that I have thought that the evident or non-evident, obvious or obviously wrong notions around Trump's alleged narcissism are ... almost besides the point. Besides the point because, to my eyes, whatever the obstacles to a narcissist taking political power, there are leg-ups over a non-narcissist. In other words, narcissism, or a small measure of it, can help a person navigate the procedure of getting elected to power. More on that later. I should give some attention to what OLers have had to say about Narcissism and Mr Trump. It isn't clear to me that we should speak of an attribute of personality as a pathology or a personality disorder. So, from the get-go, knowing nothing, What are the signs and behaviours of narcissism (can it be reliably diagnosed?)? How would narcissistic behaviour shape a candidate''s campaign? How did it do so in this instance, this thought experiment? -- why would it make any difference? Additionally: In other words, if you are saying President Trump is a narcissist meaning he's mentally ill, that's wrong. If you're saying he's a narcissist, meaning he's self-centered or selfish, OK. Maybe even an asshole at times, OK. More discussion ... Clinically diagnosed narcissists come in considerable varieties - some with very good families and considerable success in business. It is a defensive mechanism that can actually accelerate success in business. It isn't good for the president of a constitutional government. Less discussion, which MSK excised in a response**: Back in time ... "Well, aren't you special ...?" plus a bit more of WSS opinions and takes ... And yet ... mild word-based spanking: I should hope so. I have only recently reached Elite Status as beloved-if-warty elder at OL. My opinions are read by handfuls of folks of a Randian bent, scores even, maybe hundreds on a good weekend. My elitism is of course like narcissism, good perhaps only in setting aside nagging self-doubts and buttressing self-esteem. When it slides into amour-propre, it can be nasty. Next year, I am going in for a spot with OL Elite Reason Cheerleaders. My cheering for Reason is pretty clumsy still, unpersuasive. Thank you for pointing out my falls. It hurts a little bit a first, but. He gets annoying ... To the post that suggested to me I do a search on my mentions of narcissism and the limits of lay diagnosis ... ______________________________ ** "Always say never ... " Sticky!
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    Meanwhile, we managed to dodge an ice age. http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/thank-a-farmer-if-you-hate-ice-ages
  35. 1 point
    Is Amazon Bad for the Postal Service? Or Its Savior? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/amazon-postal-service-trump.html April 4, 2018 SEATTLE — Five times in the last week, President Trump has pointed his Twitter arrows at Amazon over what he insists is a bad deal for the United States Postal Service. Mr. Trump wrote on Tuesday that the agreement, which sets what Amazon pays the Postal Service for many orders, costs American taxpayers billions of dollars. “I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy,” he wrote. [...] But the Postal Service says all such deals it makes are profitable — and must be by law. An independent body, the Postal Regulatory Commission, oversees the rates that the Postal Service charges for its products. By law, the agreements it cuts with corporate customers like Amazon must cover their “attributable costs” that directly result from their use of the postal network. Amazon helps lower those costs by organizing the packages it takes to the Post Office by destination ZIP code in over 35 sorting centers around the country, leaving less work that must be done by postal workers. The company relies on the Postal Service strictly for last-mile delivery to customers, short trips that further limit the cost of delivering each package. [...]
  36. 1 point
    You believe they seek out employees who receive government assistance? I don't see how one could prove that true or false. If it were true it would get leaked out eventually (via some internal policy manual becoming public). If not true, there would never be confirmation of the fact. As to postage, at least where I live, Amazon does its own deliveries. Which tells me that bringing that part of the business in-house is cheaper and/or more reliable than using USPS.
  37. 1 point
    MSK: "Are you just blanking out the data shenanigans or do you really believe nothing goes on?" What data shenanigans? Just because the government is a customer of Amazon Web Services, there must be shenanigans? Where is the evidence? Are you just blanking out all the shenanigans between the Trump Organization and governments before he was President? Is the Trump International Hotel lease with the government shenanigan-free? Do you believe nobody employed in the Trump Organization, e.g. maids, gets food stamps?
  38. 1 point
    Zzzzzz. Oh, sorry. I skimmed the article to see if it has occurred to anyone to try to investigate and measure the effects that Muh Russians' efforts may or may not have had on anyone. Apparently not. Is there any evidence at all that they influenced anyone to a greater degree than my cousin's thousands of attempts on social media to convince others of the powers of essential oils and healing crystals? (Zero likes, zero replies, several ignores and unfollows, and a few unfriends.) No? It's just too fucking scary, so we have to take measures immediately to control everything? Maybe it's even "settled science" already, and anyone who asks about proof is a "science denier"? J
  39. 1 point
    Additional tips: Assume the role of teacher/lector/scold/mentor, dole out guidance and advice, but don't follow it yourself. You're the sage, they're the students at your feet. The rules of civil behavior are for Them, not for superior you. Avoid substance. Stick with superficial gotcha points. When invited to swim in deeper waters, ignore the invitations. When challenged to swim deeper, extra-double-ignore the chalkengrs. Splash even more energetically in the safety of the shallows. Document dump. Don't summarize. Don't explain. Just expect people to read thousands of words, and then to come to the same conclusion that you did, but which you won't share in a brief summary. Expect them to find and identify your argument for you, and to agree with it, of course! Behave as if mortally wounded when you receive in turn what you've given. How dare anyone speak to you in the way that you speak to them! J
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
    But what makes you think I'd disagree with that? I only say that such a triviality is not relevant in this discussion. You could as well say "A is A", well so what? Of course I'd condemn both. So? Oh, but evolution could in principle be falsified. That this so far never has happened is very strong evidence for the correctness of the theory. You shouldn't believe what creationists say... See for example: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Falsifiability_of_evolution https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/07/09/what-would-disprove-evolution/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00045845 What you call anecdotes are verified historical facts, many from Freud's own letters to his fiancée (quite revealing, and therefore longtime suppressed) , his publications, and letters and publications of contemporaries. It is no tabloid gossip, as sometimes is suggested. But, as I wrote before, the central point is that he either lied about his treatment of certain patients, or even made up stories out of whole cloth, but did use those stories as evidence for his theories. That is what makes him a quack, even if his theories might accidentally be correct (never mind that the probability of that is quite low). It may be good fiction, but it isn’t science. For that matter, Freud was certainly a gifted writer, his Die Traumdeutung and his Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens I’ve read many times, it makes fascinating reading, although I’d now have more problems with his tricks and deception. An artist, but not a scientist.
  42. 1 point
    Why do you think religion or Marxism has been taken seriously by so many people over the years? I don’t think that has happened because humanity is nothing but stupid people (although there are no doubt many of those), but because many people have been indoctrinated from early childhood, absorbing the cultural ideas of their time and environment. That doesn’t tell us much about the quality of those ideas or of their originators and propagators (except perhaps that they were clever manipulators). In America still 80% of the adult people believe in God, and 56% believe in the God as described in the Bible. Worse still: 38% believe in a young Earth creationism, i.e. that the Earth is at most 10000 years old. The fact that many millions of people in a modern western society believe something that is demonstrably false and contradicts everything in sciences like physics, astronomy, biology and geology, shows that the number of adherents to a theory doesn’t say much about the validity of that theory. The criterion for calling someone a quack is not whether his theories are wrong – any serious scientist can be wrong. But if you know that your data don’t support your theory but chose to suppress that knowledge and fake your results, if you make up your data out of whole cloth, if you insist in propagating your pet theory while you know or should know that the facts don’t support it, then you are a quack.
  43. 1 point
    I will definitely read this. Freud deserves to be bashed, especially for his "theory" that girls experience anxiety at lacking penises as they grow up. Most girls would tell you they would feel much more anxiety at suddenly acquiring one. Even before I had a clear idea of what a penis is (and you would be shocked at how old I was when that happened) I knew that this idea was fantastically ridiculous.
  44. 1 point
    William, I just ordered Crews’ “Freud, the Making of an Illusion” at Amazon, thanks to your mentioning it and after reading the reviews there. Although I’m well acquainted with Freud’s many bad arguments, cheating and outright lying in propagating his “science”, not to mention his often otherwise reprehensible behavior, I think that a book with some 700 pages can still furnish me some juicy new details about the life and methods of the Viennese quack. Thanks for the recommendation!
  45. 1 point
    No. Trump mocked a reporter for his views and for his political activism, and the physical expression that Trump was using to mock that reporter was the same one that he used, in the exact same speech, to mock a military general: It was a physical representation of panic and frustration, not of physical deformity or disability. He's done the same expression many times. He did it about Cruz, about bank regulators, and others. There are even tapes of him having done the gesture as far back as 2002 to represent panic and frustration. Only when he did it about a reporter, whose physical motions due to his disability do not resemble Trump's impression of panic, did the left jump on it, after realizing that they could twist it to use it against Trump. And you either naively fell for it, or you know better and are being dishonest again. You're using a disability as a political weapon to try to smear people. Hateful shit, Carol. You're not being a good person. You're lying. What was a big hit with Trump's audience was the content of Trump's criticism of the reporter's political activism, and of his mocking the reporter's panic and frustration at being called out by Trump. You're really being dishonest, Carol. Trump's audience at the time had no idea who this reporter was. They had no idea that he had a physical disability. They did not think that Trump was making fun of a disability, and he wasn't, just as he wasn't making fun of a disability when he used exactly the same gesture to mock Ted Cruz, bank regulators and a military general. You're anachronistically projecting your hateful misinterpretation onto other people, and assigning them mindsets and motives so that you can justify your hatred. He didn't call all Mexicans rapists. You know better. He merely pointed out that some of the people who cross the border are serious criminals, just as many politicians from both parties have done, including Obama and the Clintons. Trump has said that he loves the Mexican people, and that most are good. That fact doesn't matter to you, though, does it? You want to believe what you want to believe. You want to hate. So you infer what you want to infer, and willfully ignore the rest. Trump also said that MS-13 members were animals, and the activist lying press claimed that he said that all immigrants were animals. Haters, just like you. J
  46. 1 point
    I looked for a minute and a half at the video and I can only take so much smarmy gotcha tone. So I stopped. Ayn Rand once said to not examine a folly. Only look at what it accomplishes. The folly I keep seeing about chemtrails goes something like this in the subtext: Sure, you can throw shit out of an airplane on top of people's heads for nefarious reasons, but our elites would never do that. Whoever even imagines our elites would do something like that is wacko. All the rest is arguing over semantics and playing gotcha to show just how wacko a questioner is. And that is generally the only result anyone gains from examining a folly perpetrated by the establishment. You have to swallow the proposition of the pristine moral integrity of corrupt elites along with nitpicking. It's bullshit. yawn... Michael
  47. 1 point
    Here is Mick West of Metabunk going through texts on cloud studies. If you don't say a shibboleth, rub your rabbit foot, and subtly angle your head away from the light (propane), then you might open your mind to the Null Hypothesis ... This speaks to 'persistence' ... and may serve to augment Jon Letendre's grasp of what he is up against. Knowing what the (shills? Cabal? Queer-Anon? Satanic Ritual Abusers?) bad guy is cooking up might act as an immunization against Them in Their larger project.
  48. 1 point
    Right. And I’m stupid, stupid, stupid for believing my own observations and mind, instead of...Snopes! It’s comical, really. ”But, those elements are in fireworks, too, so, so, so it must all be stupid ?”
  49. 1 point
  50. 1 point
    William, Sure. I went to my orders completed page at Amazon and typed in "conspiracy" just to make this fast. Four books came up, but I have more (I always haunt used book places, too ). I can't list those right off the bat because I have a crap-load of books and I didn't make a separate section for "conspiracy theory" like I did for Rand, writing, Scientology, evil (a few very interesting books ), religion, etc. Here are the 4: Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Complete Dossier by Brad Steiger and Sherry Steiger The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer History Decoded: The 10 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time by Brad Meltzer and Keith Ferrell Demented Agitprop: The Myth and Madness of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theories by Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones On a related note, I recently went through the audiobook: Secret Societies: Inside the Freemasons, the Yakuza, Skull and Bones, and the World's Most Notorious Secret Organizations by John Lawrence Reynolds. And, if I'm not mistaken, I have the print version called "Shadow People," but I can't seem to find it. This is a VERY GOOD book and it has a slant you would like. I have the following in my Amazon wish list. (sigh... I'll get to them some day--I have a way-too-long wish list up on Amazon ) The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory by Jesse Walker Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History by David Aaronovitch American Conspiracy Theories by Joseph E. Uscinski There are a bunch of others without the "conspiracy" keyword. In fact, I'm trying to remember where I got these titles from. I often look up books in the footnotes of books I am reading and, if I think one is interesting, I try to find it and usually put it on my wish-list if it is for sale at Amazon. I have a Scribd account and I probably have some things separated over there, too. That should do for now. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this though. I have other priorities right now (creative writing stuff). btw - I just put Suspicious Minds on my wish list. Michael