Leaderboard

Popular Content

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

  1. I think you're right, in the long run. (POTUS has already made clear he'll intervene if the mayor and governor don't step up, and since they're flipped him off in response, he most likely will.) But I admit that I personally can't just casually dismiss the short-term threats, if the reports are true about businesses being "shaken down", the property damage, etc. I'm also thinking about how it's affecting people psychologically, having to witness this, especially the potentially innocent people caught in the cross-fire. (And now, there's someone acting as "warlord" already edging out Antifa?
    2 points
  2. My thought wasn’t directed solely at Brad and not necessarily only about money. Gore and Gore-like people do it to fleece money from the ‘system’ , Hollywood type virtue-signalers are probably motivated by an inherent narcissism. And they need their parrots to help move masses to accept the building of the ‘system’ or even to just be complacent enough to not fight back against the building .
    2 points
  3. Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
    2 points
  4. Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
    2 points
  5. It's true that the strategy isn't going to work, but "dealing with climate change" isn't what it's aimed at. Ruling the world is. Ellen
    2 points
  6. 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 points
  7. 2 points
  8. 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
    2 points
  9. 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!
    2 points
  10. No. I didn't ask that. Ah. So, you're interested in discussing Jon, not Q. Why not do so? That might be interesting. Hahaha. Wow, that was so smooth, Billy! Seamless! I didn't even see what happened. No one did. Believing in bullshit (or not applying a coherent realist/small-O epistemology) is not an Objectivist virtue. In my opinion, Q is a fraud and a distraction with all the trappings of a cult movement. It boggles my mind that Objectivish people accept either the soft or hard version of the Q lore, or find the foundational premises of Q captivating
    1 point
  11. I'll wait till the end of October (surprises?) before I post a final prediction. My last prediction was that Kamala Harris would not be chosen to be on the ticket with Biden ... this should be known in a few days. I am currently stocking metaphorical "crow" ... What makes Lichtman's prediction intriguing or notable is that he has was only wrong once (Gore/Bush), and that his 13 Keys criteria are mostly the same as ever. And that none of the criteria take any notice of polling. Enphases added. Also ... He may be "emotional," but the criteria still remain, Peter. The proof
    1 point
  12. I'm not sure about fraction. After all, climate change is supported by numerous overcome from different disciplines -conscilience. Scientists that study the sun have gone on record plenty of times starting that it is not the sun. The rate of warming does not match any changes in output of the sun. For a period, cosmic rays were being thrown around as a possible controller of cloud cover. That has since been debunked. And again, what causes a change in temperature in a system is either changes to the incoming energy or changes to the outgoing energy. You can warm yourself by throwin
    1 point
  13. This analogy really demonstrates either 1. Your lack of understanding the subject in the least bit or 2. That you are a completely dishonest broker in this conversation. Based on your tone, reliance on name calling, and complete refusal to answer a simple question that is very relevant to establish humans as the driver of the current climate, I'm going with #2.
    1 point
  14. No, idiot. The difference between a junkyard dog and a human being is stark.
    1 point
  15. Did I say equal parts dumb and insincere? Three here now! Holy shit this is the best.
    1 point
  16. When you are incapable of discussing science and incapable of even discussing your favorite nature.com article, just tell your interlocutor he is confused. Billy, I really can see now what you see in Brad.
    1 point
  17. Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?
    1 point
  18. You too have failed to answer. How does Arrhenius hypothesis fail your criteria for a falsifiable hypothesis that increasing co2 would cause warming?
    1 point
  19. I lose sight of the essential disagreement(s) ... amid the scorn-storms and psychological/character assessments. I think sometimes that 'What Could Persuade You to Change Your Mind?" is the right way to go, but that question doesn't reveal what a particular person believes. I don't -- after all this time -- know which beliefs are held by who, not in detail (except for Bob/Ba'al). It might be best answered by the Yale Climate Communications survey questions as revised. (or by a simple set of questions which answers reflect relative adhesion to so-called 'Consensus Statements**). The
    1 point
  20. "Q" is on a tear about supposed shenanigans in the March primary elections in California ... "Q" is not a top-level analyst.
    1 point
  21. We get closer and closer to the Great Awakening ... "Hi, my name is 'Q' -- I have a Top Sekrit Classification, which allows me access to terrific insider information like, um, Fox News tweets. I love my job."
    1 point
  22. Testing an easier way to add in Q-drops. Previously I took screen-captures of Qmap items one by one, then uploaded them, then posted them, then added link attributes pointing to the actual drop on (previously) 8chan.net. Since the 'new' Q server is on an unreliable and often-unreachable channel of the facelifted 8kun, and since Qmap has now added extra editorial material, it's easier for a lazy person like me to simply copy text/HTML snips from Qmap ... This is the experiment. Unfortunately for Q-enthusiasts, there is no way to reach 8kun through Qmap or from these drop-copies below
    1 point
  23. I have changed nothing in the comment above. When I checked just now in several browsers, the OL software attempts to fill in the tweet code and display it, but fails and shows nothing. This could mean that the original tweet (from around or before the 23rd) was deleted by Mike or was hobbled by some Twitter AI. I made a mistake in assuming Jon Letendre was yapping about the later tweet. My bad. I'll try to track down the tweet-hole or tweet that Mike may have altered or retweeted or what have you. I did nothing to alter the comment being yapped about. For those who care about the
    1 point
  24. Frederick Brennan has an opinion about 8kun:
    1 point
  25. Dustin Nemos and Jordan Sather are each proposing a probable set of events, touching on similar topics. The biggest news from Jordan is the 'return of Q' ... via the 8chan owner Watkins. "Biden for Treason2020, Q Justice Phases, Mass Arrests, Trends ... " Young Jordan ... "8chan Coming Back? - Calls for Impeachment - Biden & Ukraine - Flynn Case News ..."
    1 point
  26. Skeptic editor Michael Shermer in conversation with Peter Boghossian:
    1 point
  27. Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
    1 point
  28. 1 point
  29. This is more related to themes covered by various personalities in this thread (the story is in the context of Australia): Not everyone cares about climate change, but reproach won’t change their mind.
    1 point
  30. I like this woman's poise. Anybody put money on Harris win place or show? Even if the steely grace is a false front, there is a certain gravity in her performance. Will the presidential nickname stick?
    1 point
  31. Actually they don't. When one looks at the adjustments, they are equally weighted up and down. Some one could then say that their is a temporal shift in the adjustements, ie early ones shifting down, late shifting up, as a means to exaggerate the trend. The issue there is this is completely opposite of what is seen. The net sum of all adjustments reduces the total trend: https://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=3280 As for the rest of everything you have to say, it's all conspiracy. Not going to waste my time disproving your teapot in orbit that you can't validate by your own
    1 point
  32. 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
    1 point
  33. 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 a
    1 point
  34. 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
    1 point
  35. Newcomers, please, take a minute to read and respect the basic guidelines that rule on this site (at least in the abstract, since old-timers generally get a break). I was a moderator on an insanely-combative site, Syria Comment, back a few years. My main take-away from those forum rules boils down to one thing: do not needlessly personalize discussion. See the present SC guidelines in the peekaboo at bottom. Objectivist Living Guidelines:
    1 point
  36. One reply gets me labeled and I'm supposed to think this isn't a hostile environment?
    1 point
  37. How shall I respond to a comment that presumes I operate in bad faith? "Deflection and blah blah blah" ...
    1 point
  38. There's never a bad time to think about atmospheric physics. "How does it work?"
    1 point
  39. He can’t do it. He can’t resist his stalker urges.
    1 point
  40. Capes and Dollar Signs???????? Good grief!
    1 point
  41. Meanwhile, we managed to dodge an ice age. http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/thank-a-farmer-if-you-hate-ice-ages
    1 point
  42. 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 m
    1 point
  43. 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
    1 point
  44. 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
    1 point
  45. Just do not start accusing the geese! Some of us do not forget! #stop the Avian Order #justice for Thomas
    1 point
  46. Woo-hoo! I saved and saved and saved up till I could afford a speedy, powerful new laptop. This is the result. A pure proof that I can upload two ways, from within my streaming server and straight from the Youtube Creator Studio. Woo-hoo!
    1 point