Popular Content

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

  1. 2 points
  2. 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
  3. 2 points
  4. 2 points
  5. 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!
  6. 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
  7. 1 point
    William made starkly obvious how dumb his thinking on climate issues is with this question: Ellen
  8. 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?"
  9. 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.
  10. 1 point
    Yes, I agree there is uncertainty. The most recent work is looking like the total feedback is positive. That's why I specifically quoted their work (saying 'likely positive') as well as provided a link to their paper (albeit paywalled) and provided the key diagram that supports their assertion.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 1 point
    Apologies for not interpreting your question as simply what did the GHE refer too. Apparently I've spent too much time arguing with deniers about basic founded principals that I saw your question as an attack on the existence of the greenhouse effect. In regards to your question about repeatable science, I'm going to go back once again to radiative transfer models(RTM or LBL for line-by-line). This is how we approx the GHE for the system. The RTM's demonstrate that we have a very solid understanding of how much energy the system emits when it's fed the proper inputs (as is the case for all models). This is demonstrated when we run models for a particular region and then use a satellite to take a snapshot of the upwelling infrared (IR) of that region. That is what the original image I linked you was demonstrating. Here's another prime example of how well MODTRAN matches satellite observations. For reference, the x-axis simply represents wavelengths (or wavenumbers) and the y-axis represents intensity.
  14. 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
  15. 1 point
  16. 1 point
    As I said, can't make you drink. http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/ Did you badger your teachers for not answering the test questions for you too?
  17. 1 point
    How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith? "Deflection and blah blah blah" ...
  18. 1 point
    They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."
  19. 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)
  20. 1 point
    He can’t do it. He can’t resist his stalker urges.
  21. 1 point
    Muh false flag Russians? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/liberal-billionaire-apologizes-for-funding-false-flag-effort-to-link-kremlin-to-republican-in-alabama-senate-race
  22. 1 point
    In like Flynn, out like Gulen ... The purported 'Witch Hunt' has consulted the Malificarum and laid charges against two former Michael Flynn coven-mates cum business partners ... The aim of their witchery was to get a US resident -- 'cleric' Fethulah Gulen -- rendered unto Turkish justice. If you haven't much background on Fethulah Gulen and his crimes against Turkey, the last link here is your best bet for a quick sponge-up of pertinent details:
  23. 1 point
    We have to start punishing people now in order to avoid extinction. It's settle science. If you're a Denier, then you are causing our extinction, and we therefore have the right to stop you with any means necessary. We've tried to do it legally, and we've tried to do it only slightly violently. You didn't listen, so the next step is blood. Damn, it's going to be fun and gloriously righteous to punish the Deniers/Nonbelievers/Infidels! https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/17/thousands-gather-to-block-london-bridges-in-climate-rebellion
  24. 1 point
    Vote for democrats, dudes, so we can impeach Trump and the Koch brothers, and indict Rush Limbaugh, and fine MSK, bro!
  25. 1 point
    I don't see an argument that Khashoggi was a 'terrorist.' Declarative sentences are swell as far as marking-territory or blurted opinion goes, but such declamations are not persuasive. This seems to be another manic claim without warrant. Ho hum. Why would anyone care about this issue today? "The Left" hurr hurr grawk.
  26. 1 point
    Scott Adams has his say as well. From today, excerpted from here.
  27. 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
  28. 1 point
  29. 1 point
  30. 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.
  31. 1 point
    Responsible to the employee and to "society". Which is not necessarily altruism, though invariably it gets packaged that way. This ("responsibility to stakeholders" in modern parlance), as opposed to the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Alright, let's move on. Allow me to assert, without proof, something I believe is most likely true: Amazon receives a sufficient number of job applicants for its entry-level positions that it could fill them all without hiring a single beneficiary of government assistance. So why don't they? Could it be because they are forbidden to ask? There are a whole host of questions you're not allowed to ask nowadays, like marital status...I'm not even going to start compiling a list here. Actually, I don't think Amazon seeks to exclude struggling single mothers, but note that they couldn't even if they wanted to. Ultimately what this comes down to is whether Amazon may pay market rates for labor. Since they're so successful are they to be held to a different standard than McDonalds? And they have some number of government contracts (which they're dependent on? What percentage of their revenue comes from the government? Is it a no-bid deal? Did they get an affirmative action preference?).
  32. 1 point
    I'm going to have to insist you answer my first question: Is it the responsibility of an employer to ensure the economic stability/status of its employees? Yes, no, maybe, sometimes?
  33. 1 point
    Yes, really. For example: https://kdvr.com/2018/09/07/bernie-sanders-introduces-bill-targeting-worker-pay-at-amazon-walmart/ And Amazon having government as a customer is "in bed with the government"? What's next? A company that sells office supplies to any part of government is "in bed with the government"? A building owner that leases space to any part of government is "in bed with the government"? And that some of its employees having received food stamps puts Amazon "in bed with the government"? By such criteria Donald Trump was "in bed with the government" and "lost his high moral standing" before running for President.
  34. 1 point
    Amy Peikoff appears again on Foxnews with Tucker, this time in a tangle about Jeff Bezos and his worth. Amy starts out strong, forcing Tucker into a religious trap with a "moral" obligation to pay workers, causing Tucker to use his upper register nasal cavity in some high-pitched objections to Amy's Objectivist principles. Amy sensed she had him dazed, but she didn't remain in-focus and instead tried a kung-fu analogy that failed to deliver her fatality, instead the analogy caused her to slip and Tucker was there to make a final-seconds comeback to win the match. I like seeing Tucker have her on his show, even if it is for the purpose of winning argument and proving that his principles are superior to hers.
  35. 1 point
    I think it a mistake to focus on the science which few of us are able to judge. Regardless of the science, the political question is whether this provides justification for a massive concentration of wealth and power in Washington, DC. Even if things do heat up, I doubt the government will respond in a more efficient and economical manner than will leaving people to sort this out for themselves. About the only regulation I would support would be a stiff tax on hot air from politicians.
  36. 1 point
    “I am going to put a Hex on you ...” I have actually suspected that about you. Hiw long have you been practicing?
  37. 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
  38. 1 point
  39. 1 point
    I should probably have included this brief Jordan Peterson lecture excerpt, as it focuses more tightly on a couple of important points. See also the cogent bits in this one: "All that's left are his mistakes" Jordan Peterson introduces Freud
  40. 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.
  41. 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!
  42. 1 point
    Toothless garbage people. They used to be the salt of the Earth, the honorable working man, the blue collar hero, the underdog, the common folk who were the heart and soul of the Democratic party. The Dems shafted them. So they left. And now we see what the Dems always thought of them. Not only that, but now the entire Republican party is defined by the characteristics of the "garbage" that abandoned the Dems. The whole party now is undereducated, toothless trash. They don't know their heads from their asses, and are politically gullible and naive. They're stupid, and don't know how to vote for what's best for them. They became that in one election cycle. Pretty revealing attitudes. J
  43. 1 point
    Just do not start accusing the geese! Some of us do not forget! #stop the Avian Order #justice for Thomas
  44. 1 point
    Wow. I'm embarrassed for Cohen. Career in the toilet. J
  45. 1 point
    Your meditation shows again that you are that rare thing in the cyberworld, indeed in human natureworld itself, a genuinely free mind, a developed mature brain and conscience and dare I say it, soul. Part of the wilds of the unharvested from Fox Farms,com. and Disneyliberal.getrealjobs.com. Wild thing, I think you move me. So glad Peter is likely not following me or he would have been inspired by some other oldie and spoiled my train of thought!
  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
    William, That's easy. Anyone who makes fun of the person asking a question is gaslighting. An attempt to understand is one thing. Even overzealous speculation. Mocking people who ask questions and are suspicious of those in power (especially the ones who keep getting caught lying), and attempting to belittle the questioners for what they see and telling them not to believe their lying eyes, is another. That's gaslighting. That's not discussion. That's not an attempt to persuade by reason. That's not an attempt to convince. It's a command to sit down and shut up. This is the way they try to sell manmade climate change, too. Same old shit. Michael
  48. 1 point
    I saw this panel discussion in person. About 24 hours later the CEO of ARI said that there were already 130,000 views of it on You Tube. I may comment on it later.
  49. 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
  50. 1 point
    What a nonsense. According to these criteria astronomy wouldn't be an objective science either. The same can be said of the stars, astronomers can only observe some photons arriving on earth. We can’t directly observe the evolution of a star, so the theories about such stellar evolution aren’t objective science either?