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
    C'mon. What else is he gonna call it? My blog/Your blog? My Notablog? --Brant
  7. 1 point
    How integral or statistically significant is the albedo value to the overall maths or modeling? The first link you provided describes cloud formation predictions as a ‘wildcard’, what was the albedo value in the 2500 yr span that you have compared to the post industrial span and consequent temperature ‘spike(s)’ and if indeterminate, does any of that affect your confidence in predictions?
  8. 1 point
    What Brad is doing is trying to bog down the discussion by overwhelming it with minutiae. The game is that we asked for repeatable, so Brad is going to pretend to not understand the context, and give all sorts of examples of repeatable in regard to noncontroversial pieces of the puzzle, while hoping that we didn't notice that he switched to talking about pieces when we were specifically asking for repeatable entire picture. It's like someone saying that granite floats on air. You ask for proof via repeatable experiments, and douchebag then goes into the repeatable science of the mineralogical composition of granite, and what evidence there is to label it felsic. Do you know what felsic means? Huh, stupid? No? But yet you have your big important opinions about rocks not floating! Science denier! That, and another tack is bickering about how badly Brad's being treated, and who said what. Boo hoo hoo. Brad has lots of time for all of that, but no time for answering my questions. That's fanboy/activist stuff, not science. Science is actually the mindset that the alarmist fanboy/activists ridicule: critical thinking, skepticism, caution, testing, etc. A truly scientific mindset is that of trying as hard as one can to find flaws in any theory. I don't get the impression that Brad, Meatball2, or Billy have ever taken that approach. Their mindset seems to be that of confirmation bias, heroically fighting the silly "denier" rubes, tee hee heeing, and high-fiving. But maybe I'm wrong. I guess Meatball2 is gone, but I'd like to ask Brad and Billy to tell us about their critical examination of the idea of anthropogenic climate change. What are your biggest criticisms? Do you have any? What holes have you found in the theory? What are the biggest weaknesses in whatever theory you have the most confidence? Do you feel that you have to hide them? Show us your critical scientific side rather than just the fanboy side. After all, even the IPCC identifies severe weaknesses. It admits to significant limitations. Anyway, there's no need for the trick of trying to obscure the forest with leaves. It's really as simple as X amount of CO2 over time period Y should equal temperature Z. Sounding like a broken record: In regard to the big picture issue of anthropogenic climate change (and not isolated, smaller pieces of the picture), show us the repeatable, successful predictions. Identify specifically what was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what the start and finish dates of the experiment were, provide the unmolested data, the untainted control, and the unmanipulated historical record. J
  9. 1 point
    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:
  10. 1 point
    Sorry, you don't know me and you really shouldn't try speaking for me. I don't really don't care if you are impressed by me or anything I have to say. My intent isn't to garner followers. I'm only trying to illustrate, currently, what the greenhouse effect is so we can move forward in the conversation. No point in jumping to radiative transfer models when there is ignorance on what they represent.
  11. 1 point
    Which question? Lots to scroll through so yeah, I just kinda hopped in somewhere.
  12. 1 point
    They really don't seem to grasp the differences between the concepts "hypothesis," "prediction," and "conclusion."
  13. 1 point
    For another angle on the Jetstream and the Polar Vortex. HAARP!:
  14. 1 point
  15. 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
  16. 1 point
    William, No it isn't. That link goes to NBC News. And NBC News has been on a propaganda campaign against President Trump for over two years. I don't know what the "best bet" would be, but going to a place with no credibility whatsoever except as a propaganda outfit is not it. Michael
  17. 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
  18. 1 point
    Vote for democrats, dudes, so we can impeach Trump and the Koch brothers, and indict Rush Limbaugh, and fine MSK, bro!
  19. 1 point
    The left is using the same tactic in regard to the Khashoggi issue that they use for climate doom. Unfalsifiability. Just like all possible outcomes prove catastrophic manmade climate change, all potential choices of courses of action in response to the Khashoggi killing are wrong. Our Billy is even participating. It's the reason he won't answer questions about the proper course of action. He and the rest of the left wish to reserve The ability to condemn, no matter what.
  20. 1 point
  21. 1 point
    “That Canada continues to supply Saudi Arabia with arms, despite the horrific atrocities being committed in Yemen on a daily basis by a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia, is puzzling – if not absurd.” https://en.mehrnews.com/news/137726/How-can-we-defend-human-rights-while-selling-arms-to-Saudi-Arabia
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    William, I urge you, like yesterday, to think about the story triangle. I got that off the Internet somewhere, but I learned about it from an Appalachian storyteller, Elizabeth Ellis, who wrote a book with Loren Niemi called Inviting the Wolf In. Also, I took The Art of Storytelling: From Parents to Professionals by Hannah B. Harvey from The Great Courses. Harvey mentioned the story triangle, too. I did a different version of my own for fiction writers for a course I am making. (I'm going the route of drawing up a course in order to teach myself. ) Six relationships. The problem with most authors is that they have a relationship with their story, but don't even reflect on the relationship of their story to them, much less the other four relationships. For example, you mentioned how awful you have been in creating fiction. You gave several examples. Did it ever occur to you to ask why this would be important to the reader? After all, if you don't have a reader, who will read your stuff? So thinking about your relationship (both ways) to the audience is a good thing to do. Believe it or not, there are reasons why a story with examples of your incompetence would be important. The main one is the emotion it makes readers feel. For example, if you were using these examples for comedy and jazzed them up for comic effect, the reader could laugh. Readers like to laugh. If you were presenting a struggle with a payoff, the reader could root for you. Readers like to root for underdogs. If you were showing how each awful attempt was like a lash of a whip on a raw soul that is slowly losing its mind, the reader could feel concern and empathy. Readers like to feel concern and empathy. I could go on. And if you you wanted to include information or agendas or whatever you wish in the middle and did not cut the triangle, this stuff would transmit to an interested person. But you just presented your awful attempts as if to say, "Look at that dumpster over there. It has worthless garbage in it." And the entire meaning of your statement is to point to worthless garbage and say it is your worthless garbage. Why should the reader care? Even if you stay true to pattern and attach a happy ending to it? The happy ending would be for you and only you, not for the reader to feel anything. There is no relationship to your reader in your comment. Please understand, I'm not bashing you. I'm pointing to a lesson that took me years to learn. It's like the Bloomberg article in your post. NAFTA is a relationship like a marriage. That author apparently never heard of the word, divorce, and sounded just like a man explaining to his miserable wife (the one who is getting ready to leave him, but he doesn't believe it) that their marriage could never end because of yada yada yada--while all of his examples are irrelevant to the lady. Anyway, food for thought. Partake if you wish. If not, no problem. I, for me, find this story triangle to be a powerful tool. Michael
  24. 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!
  25. 1 point
    I wrote: Bob replied: Ah, I see, so then what you're saying is that mere regulations and wood chippers aren't enough, and that we have to go much further! J
  26. 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?
  27. 1 point
    Well, having worked in the Gov't this "news" aboot Amazon's 'Secret' cloud service doesn't ring any conspiracy bells for me. Contracts like this happen all the time. But tracking the argument something doesn't compute here for me. The original objection was Bezos using contracts, tax schemes, or what-have-you to do something nefarious or unethical. Providing a legitimate example of Amazon having a cloud service contract with the CIA is not in the same category, and can't be used as an example for "Bezos using <sic> government money"... why? Because this is a standard, legitimate contract that when I put my Objectivist hat on, violates nothing of the trader principle and ethics. Why? because this happens all the time, the gov't needs confidential channels for services provided by public companies. Believe me, it's just standard practice in the IT/networking world and having a contract with the gov't. So, I'd say this one has debunked for any wrong-doing.
  28. 1 point
    The first video termination did not leave any clues about its date or topic, so here are two videos of the Tucker procedure featuring indomitable Amy, from January and April, of this year respectively. Thanks for the update, Korben. Argh, why didn't he just do a tetch of research? The date on this one is July 2017 ...
  29. 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.
  30. 1 point
    “I am going to put a Hex on you ...” I have actually suspected that about you. Hiw long have you been practicing?
  31. 1 point
    The "Manager" quote in the box at the top reminds me of Deming, the statistician who preached quality control after WWII to deaf ears in the US, so he went to Japan and made that country a world leader in quality automobiles and electronics. While this was based in part on statistics, it also included much about management practices. I think the common thread is the question of whether the management task is to make things work or to assign blame when they don't. This and three of Jonathan's points make me think of the management of the apartment building where I have been living for two years. As one example, in the fall we get a condescending letter of advance blame reminding us not to open our windows in the winter and thereby let the apartment get so cold the radiators freeze. The first question is, "Who would be dumb enough to do that in New Hampshire?" Unmentioned is the fact that the second floor here is so hot that I never have to turn the heat on all year, and, indeed, do have to open windows in the dead of winter. To solve the problem one would need to figure out what is wrong with the heating or ventilation system, but it's much easier to blame the victim.
  32. 1 point
    Giving William a break, Michael, don't you think he was just being mischievous and recalling the pedo-symbolism awfulness that Letendre has introduced on OL? I did (without asking him to verify) when I replied in the light way I did - I I am glad Roger Stone hates Nazis ! So do I. But covert signalling does appeal to lots of sick people, who vote, and like Trump's famous "good people on both sides" quote, cannot be entirely dismissed I don't think you need to go any slower here.
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    Yup. A little revision is in order. Those interested should hear the full lecture below from Branden to get on board with "a volitional consciousness". First hear, comprehend and then discount it and ignore it all you like, afaic. I recommend this especially to those who think they know it well, everyone's prone to forgetfulness, perhaps giving them a fresh perspective - most of those of skeptical mindsets will go on doing what they do best and can't do otherwise...
  35. 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.
  36. 1 point
    So, you're saying that the "switch" was already on? As in automatically? But then, what, the person volitionally turns it on again, even though it's already on? Do you understand the contradiction now? If not, you should think about it a bit more. Focus harder. Let's review: Tony said that "Switching on thinking and focus is volitional..." That means that one chooses to think and focus. But in order to choose, one must already be thinking, and also focused, about the subject of whether to choose to think and focus or not. And if one is already thinking and focused, prior to making the conscious, volitional choice to think and focus, then, therefore, thinking and focusing would be automatic, and not volitional. So, I replied, "If one isn't already thinking and focused, how does one 'volitionally switch on' thinking and focus?" Then you piped in with an answer that reveals that you didn't understand the gist of the question. Your response doesn't answer the question. J
  37. 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.
  38. 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.
  39. 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!
  40. 1 point
    Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist needs his head examined.
  41. 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
  42. 1 point
    Bill..the aliens among us are notttt reptilian, they are amphibious! Gawd, get your facts straight! ?
  43. 1 point
    Yup. The entire gag appears to be to see if the disguise will fool the target, whom we've chosen because we hate him or her because we've all invented a Narrative about him or her that we want to believe. Isn't it funny that the disguise fooled who we hate? Tee hee hee! And then, after a while, the big payoff: let's insult the guest and see how long it takes before he ends the interview! Tee hee feckin hee! It wouldn't be funny regardless of the targets' politics. It's just bitter and lacking in any imagination whatsoever. J
  44. 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
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    William, I actually like it. Especially the characteristics of the protagonist. And if one of the inadvertent effects of the CERN-CLIMATE RAPTURIZER is that it creates a black hole of dark matter, but needs to exist to keep the dark matter growing, the obvious task for the hero is to throw the goddam thing into the black hole. Zip... Black hole closed Problem solved. Mankind saved for today... Michael
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. 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?
  50. 1 point
    I personally know at least 100 Muslims who do not want to kill Robert Kolker, or even Robert Ford. Which is strange because most of the Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus and Zoroastrians in Toronto do want to kill Ford.