Popular Content

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

  1. 2 points
    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?) The O'ist conception of government's legitimate function is to protect people from the initiation of force, and in Seattle, government has not only abdicated that function, it's aiding and abetting in that initiation. This headline says it all: "Antifa Deserves a Military Response" https://pjmedia.com/columns/stephen-kruiser/2020/06/11/the-morning-briefing-antifa-deserves-a-military-response-n516040 And yes, I know Trump is letting the leftists state leaders expose themselves before he steps in, to "show" the people, and maybe that's necessary. But for HOW long? How long do people have to watch and endure other's suffering before it crosses the line from strategy to sadism? When is it enough? "Trust the plan", I hear. Still, it chafes against the O'ist impulse in me to stop the initiation of force. (Yes, maybe those people aren't so innocent, ideologically speaking, etc. Or, regarding the innocent, the Q explanation "you can't just tell the people, they have to be shown." Perhaps. Still isn't easy to watch. Like the Taggert Tunnel disaster scene. Even Dagny had to be told, upon leaving New York to the darkness, "don't look down!", lest she turn into a pillar of salt...)
  2. 2 points
    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 .
  3. 2 points
    Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:
  4. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  5. 2 points
    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
  6. 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
  7. 2 points
  8. 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
  9. 2 points
  10. 2 points
  11. 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!
  12. 1 point
    This is a screenshot of the above tweet: I will change the <meta> information to update the image and text in the Twitter Card. What will happen to the body of the tweet just capped? <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary_large_image"> <meta name="twitter:site" content="@DarleneViewer"> <meta name="twitter:title" content="This is an example of a Twitter Card with a Summary and Large Image"> <meta name="twitter:description" content="&quot;Tweet this page&quot; -- A simple set of <meta> tags in the head of an HTML document allows Twitter to insert an image, video, audio or an app within the body of the tweet."> <meta name="twitter:image" content="https://wsscherk.com/VIDEOCASTS/A47KF/images/IntheMatterOfQ_JL-cap.png">
  13. 1 point
    Oh, so Q doesn't understand how that works? The Obama website got caught testing the image prior to Floyd's ritual murder. Q is trolling. Just letting the inept scum idiots know he caught them doing that.
  14. 1 point
    Did you read that, Billy? Cuddlemuffin is free to post more recipes for tasty steamed octopus. Hooray!
  15. 1 point
    I have been reading Loserthink by Scott Adams. He deals with the very topic under discussion here and spells out the scam I have always sensed and tried to describe as best I could. Scott did a much better job. The gist is that in deciding on whether manmade CO2 causes climate change, we not only get information second hand--after all, very few people make the measurements themselves, therefore most people rely on and pass on what someone says, not what they themselves experienced--we only get to see successes, not failures. And that is very similar to a popular "narrowing down" stock scam. This leads to the blind certainty of the gloom-and-doomers. Here are Scott's words from the book (where he also describes the scam). This is why I believe Brad and William run from answering Jonathan's questions. They are in the sweet spot of the scam targets and that, allied to the social proof and peer pressure of those they read and hang out with who agree with them, makes them certain. They don't need to answer simple questions about climate science and the scientific method and couldn't if they tried--unless they said we need to learn a lot more before we can be certain of any large-scale predictions. And that includes whether man-produced CO2 causes major climate change. Granted, the climate change computer models always fail eventually, at least they have up to now, so that might make it seem like the stocks scam isn't relevant. But short term, scientists stake their reputations on these models and everyone on the manmade climate change side touts how correct they are. And they never say, "Oops," when their climate models blow up. So the public perception is that these models are successful. Sometimes they need to be "refined," but this is tweaking success, not fixing failure. That's the perception. The reality is pure failure. Michael
  16. 1 point
    No, fabricator. I didn't fall for an "illusion" and said nothing about being being dazzled. I dared the conceptually and mechanically inept Jonathan to explain why what happens does happen. He failed. You and Brant also didn't explain why or even feel it was needed. I'm not surprised. None of you saw the significance of the center of the moving coin. Déjà vu. Analysis and Solution Why does the moving coin make two rotations? From start to end the center of the moving coin travels a circular path. The radius of that path is twice either coin's radius. Hence, the circumference of the path is twice either coin's circumference. How much the moving coin rotates around its own center en route, even if none, or in what direction -- clockwise, counterclockwise, or some of both -- has no effect on the length of the path. That the coin rotates twice per the description on Wikipedia makes a distraction.
  17. 1 point
    Fight the next ice age! Burn fossil fuels! --Brant I don't think that will work, BTW
  18. 1 point
    Perhaps time for self reflection if these are common responses to statements you make. Still waiting on evidence of your assertions, by the way.
  19. 1 point
    Apologies, page 14 of the pdf or page 266 as it's labeled in the paper. And I'd suggest taking your focus off the red herring and stick to the simple question. Did he or did he not claim rising co2 would cause the planet to warm?
  20. 1 point
    14 of 17 climate models published between 1970 and 2001 accurately projected future warming. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00243-w
  21. 1 point
    My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.
  22. 1 point
    Jon, No he isn't. Who has he convinced so far? Or who has he silenced? People who already agree with him? That's being inept at propaganda. I like the pretty pictures, though. Michael
  23. 1 point
    "We" didn't put any "heat" into the oceans. --Brant ". . . here comes the sun . . . ."
  24. 1 point
    It looks like the person or persons who post as Q has been watching TV and spending time on Twitter today. For a 'top secret' insider, he or she or they doesn't appear to have any insights not available via OSINT.
  25. 1 point
    But yeah, let's trust the anonymous Q source who posts to racist lair of scumbags run by a pigfarmer. "Objectivism, anyone?"
  26. 1 point
    The President has things to say about Roger Stone and justice. Something something "planted into Team Trump" in 1999 by mumble mumble ... Stone is a plant of the Kabbal woop woop.
  27. 1 point
    William, I hate to see Milo like that. He needs to get his sass back and come out swinging. I hope he does, but I don't know where his head is at right now. My biggest fear for him is if he turned to drugs or something like that. As to the event itself, I don't know anything about it other than what I saw in these tweets. It seems like celebrity gossip dressed up as more than it is. Michael
  28. 1 point
    The Q as Folk numpties are at work:
  29. 1 point
  30. 1 point
  31. 1 point
    This old piece popped up for me today. Truth: "There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious." ----- Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. iStockphoto 7.3K1.1K By JAY RICHARDS Published on April 19, 2017 • 168 Comments Jay Richards This week’s March for Science is odd. Marches are usually held to defend something that’s in peril. Does anyone really think big science is in danger? The mere fact that the March was scheduled for Earth Day betrays what the event is really about: politics. The organizers admitted as muchearly on, though they’re now busy trying to cover the event in sciencey camouflage. If past is prologue, expect to hear a lot about the supposed “consensus” on catastrophic climate change this week. The purpose of this claim is to shut up skeptical non-scientists. How should non-scientists respond when told about this consensus? We can’t all study climate science. But since politics often masquerades as science, we need a way to tell one from the other. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink? Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are prone to herd instincts. Many false ideas once enjoyed consensus. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternativesto their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger. We shouldn’t, of course, forget the other side of the coin. There are cranks and conspiracy theorists. No matter how well founded a scientific consensus, there’s someone who thinks it’s all hokum. Sometimes these folks turn out to be right. But often, they’re just cranks whose counsel is best ignored. So how do we distinguish, as Andrew Coyne puts it, “between genuine authority and mere received wisdom? And how do we tell crankish imperviousness to evidence from legitimate skepticism?” Do we have to trust whatever we’re told is based on a scientific consensus unless we can study the science ourselves? When can you doubt a consensus? When should you doubt it? Your best bet is to look at the process that produced, defends and transmits the supposed consensus. I don’t know of any complete list of signs of suspicion. But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery. (1) When different claims get bundled together Usually, in scientific disputes, there’s more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that we are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we must transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different claims based on different evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet and Newfoundland become a popular place to tan: That wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause. There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four claims are often bundled together. So, if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s dishonest. When well-established claims are tied with other, more controversial claims, and the entire bundle is labeled “consensus,” you have reason for doubt. (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate Personal attacks are common in any dispute. It’s easier to insult than to the follow the thread of an argument. And just because someone makes an ad hominem argument, it doesn’t mean that their conclusion is wrong. But when the personal attacks are the first out of the gate, don your skeptic’s cap and look more closely at the data. When it comes to climate change, ad hominems are everywhere. They’re even smuggled into the way the debate is described. The common label “denier” is one example. This label is supposed to call to mind the charge of columnist Ellen Goodman: “I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” There’s an old legal proverb: If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have neither, attack the witness. When proponents of a scientific consensus lead with an attack on the witness, rather than on the arguments and evidence, be suspicious. (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line The famous Lysenko affair in the former Soviet Union is example of politics trumping good science. But it’s not the only way politics can override science. There’s also a conspiracy of agreement, in which assumptions and interests combine to give the appearance of objectivity where none exists. This is even more forceful than a literal conspiracy enforced by a dictator. Why? Because it looks like the agreement reflects a fair and independent weighing of the evidence. Tenure, job promotions, government grants, media accolades, social respectability, Wikipedia entries, and vanity can do what gulags do, only more subtly. Alexis de Tocqueville warned of this almost two centuries ago. The power of the majority in American society, he wrote, could erect “formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.” He could have been writing about climate science. Indeed, the quickest way for scientists to put their careers at risk is to raise even modest questions about climate doom (see here, here and here). Scientists are under pressure to toe the party line on climate change and receive many benefits for doing so. That’s another reason for suspicion. (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish Though it has its limits, the peer-review process is meant to provide checks and balances. At its best, it helps weed out bad and misleading work, and make scientific research more objective. But when the same few people review and approve each other’s work, you get conflicts of interest. This weakens the case for the supposed consensus. It becomes, instead, another reason for doubt. Those who follow the climate debate have known for years about the cliquish nature of publishing and peer review in climate science (see here for example). (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them. Besides mere cliquishness, the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been subverted to prevent dissenters from being published. Again, those who follow the debate have known about these problems for years. But the Climategate debacle in 2009 revealed some of the gory details for the broader public. And again, this gives the lay public a reason to doubt the consensus. (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented We’ve been told for years that the peer-reviewed literature is unanimous in its support for human-induced climate change. In Science, Naomi Oreskes even produced a “study” of the literature supposedly showing “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” In fact, there are plenty of dissenting papers in the literature. This is despite mounting evidence that the peer-review deck was stacked against them. The 2009 Climategate scandal underscored this: The climate scientists at the center of the controversy complained in their emails about dissenting papers that survived the peer-review booby traps they put in place. They even fantasized about torpedoing a climate science journal that dared to publish a dissenting article. (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists A well-rooted scientific consensus, like a mature oak, needs time to grow. Scientists have to do research, publish articles, read about other research, and repeat experiments (where possible). They need to reveal their data and methods, have open debates, evaluate arguments, look at the trends, and so forth, before they can come to agreement. When scientists rush to declare a consensus — when they claim a consensus that has yet to form — this should give everyone pause. In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.” In the real 1992, however, Gallup “reported that 53% of scientists actively involved in global climate research did not believe global warming had occurred; 30% weren’t sure; and only 17% believed global warming had begun. Even a Greenpeace poll showed 47% of climatologists didn’t think a runaway greenhouse effect was imminent; only 36% thought it possible and a mere 13% thought it probable.” Seventeen years later, in 2009, Gore revised his own fake history. He claimed that the debate over human-induced climate change had raged until as late as 1999, but now there was true consensus. Of course, 2009 is when Climategate broke, reminding us that what had smelled funny was indeed rotten. (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus It makes sense that chemists over time may come to agree about the results of some chemical reaction, since they can repeat the results over and over in their own labs. They’re easy to test. But much of climate science is not like that. The evidence is scattered and hard to track. It’s often indirect, imbedded in history and laden with theory. You can’t rerun past climate to test it. And the headline-grabbing claims of climate scientists are based on complex computer models that don’t match reality. These models get their input, not from the data, but from the scientists who interpret the data. This isn’t the sort of evidence that can provide the basis for a well-founded consensus. In fact, if there really were a consensus on the many claims around climate science, that would be suspicious. Thus, the claim of consensus is a bit suspect as well. (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution In Newsweek’s April 28, 1975, issue, science editor Peter Gwynne claimed that “scientists are almost unanimous” that global cooling was underway. Now we are told, “Scientists say global warming will lead to the extinction of plant and animal species, the flooding of coastal areas from rising seas, more extreme weather, more drought and diseases spreading more widely.” “Scientists say” is ambiguous. You should wonder: “Which ones?” Other times this vague company of scientists becomes “SCIENCE.” As when we’re told “what science says is required to avoid catastrophic climate change.” “Science says” is a weasely claim. “Science,” after all, is an abstract noun. It can’t speak. Whenever you see these phrases used to imply a consensus, it should trigger your baloney detector. (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies Imagine hundreds of world leaders and NGOS, science groups, and UN functionaries gathered for a meeting. It’s heralded as the most important conference since World War II, in which “the future of the world is being decided.” These officials seem to agree that institutions of “global governance” need to be set up to reorder the world economy and restrict energy use. Large numbers of them applaud wildly when socialist dictators denounce capitalism. Strange activism surrounds the gathering. And we are told by our president that all of this is based, not on fiction, but on science — that is, a scientific consensus that our greenhouse gas emissions are leading to climate catastrophe. We don’t have to imagine that scenario, of course. It happened at the UN climate meeting in Copenhagen, in December 2009. It happened again in Paris, in December 2015. Expect something at least as zany at the March for Science. Now, none of this disproves climate doom. But it does describe a setting in which truth need not appear. And at the least, when policy effects are so profound, the evidence should be rock solid. “Extraordinary claims,” the late Carl Sagan often said, “require extraordinary evidence.” When the megaphones of consensus insist that there’s no time, that we have to move, MOVE, MOVE!, you have a right to be wary. (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible Do I really need to elaborate on this point? (12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus A consensus should be based on solid evidence. But a consensus is not itself the evidence. And with well-established scientific theories, you never hear about consensus. No one talks about the consensus that the planets orbit the sun, that the hydrogen molecule is lighter than the oxygen molecule, that salt is sodium chloride, that bacteria sometimes cause illness, or that blood carries oxygen to our organs. The very fact that we hear so much about a consensus on climate change may be enough to justify suspicion. To adapt that old legal rule, when you’ve got solid scientific evidence on your side, you argue the evidence. When you’ve got great arguments, you make the arguments. When you don’t have solid evidence or great arguments, you claim consensus.
  32. 1 point
    Murderous weirdo and huge Democratic fund raiser pal of Senator Liddle Adam Schitt has finally been arrested. This third victim didn’t even die, but something has changed in California. “LOS ANGELES – Ed Buck, a prominent Democratic Party donor, was arrested Tuesday and charged with operating a drug house after a third man reportedly suffered an overdose inside his West Hollywood home last week and survived. “These fetishes include supplying and personally administering dangerously large doses of narcotics to his victims,” the prosecutors wrote, according to the Times.” I think he may be playing charades. The answer phrase is See You in 2020. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/major-democratic-donor-ed-buck-arrested-charged-with-running-drug-den.amp
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
    Did I misspell friction? No, but. 1. Dr. Franklin 2. The Weather Wizard 3. Nicholas Demente 4. GALAXY 5. Destro 6. Colonel Cobb 7. Sir August De Wynter 8. Simon Bar Sinister 9. Crimson Cowl 10. The Weatherman
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  37. 1 point
    Any "scientific consensus" is bogus, politicalized science. Its first cousin is "climate change." A family of lying liars. --Brant the real message is "Shut up, fool!"
  38. 1 point
    "Kamala Harris wielded her shtick fairly effectively at the game show formal whoopup in Miami. Building on her law order justice rap back in California, when she turns her steely eyes on you, it feeds electricity into the moment." [Edited for Twitter-friendly] That is what we could call charisma or native talent. The ugly business of Vote4ME is often the 'screen test' for the various actors. I have sampled a whole lot of individual opinion on last night, and conclude that she probably had the most 'impact' of the second and third-tier candidates, those between zero and eight percent in opinion surveys ... Does this woman have the brains and ability and money and 'talent' to push herself out of the middle? I don't know. But she is attracting the right kind of attention: critical. This from Elizabeth Nolan Brown at Reason. Kamala Harris Won the Democratic Debate by Fudging Her Record. Michael pointed to a Drudge round-up of opinion which indicated some folks were most happy with the representative from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, in the first night of the game show: Added: 5 minute Fox News report on Harris's shtick-y moments. Fake 'juice'? Did 'juice' get her atop her party's front bench from California? More juice, please.
  39. 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.
  40. 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
  41. 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
  42. 1 point
    William made starkly obvious how dumb his thinking on climate issues is with this question: Ellen
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Hell, I don't mind if all the people in the entire country become supporters of President Trump. That would stop all the ills of partisan prejudice as warned in the article. Michael
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
  47. 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
  48. 1 point
  49. 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
  50. 1 point
    D'Souza was on Laura Ingrahm tonight. The Show, I mean.