Leaderboard

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

aw fuck.. he told twitter, fuck

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

Last year? --Brant

Is that Trump eating pizza?

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!

Click on the graphic William posted and compare to the actual Reanalyzer graphic. William has played games. Also, re the issue of what he understands and what he doesn't, he ever so obviously doesn't understand what either the distribution or the sequencing and fluctuation of the figures at the bottom of the Reanalyzer series mean re the "humans are causing it" claim. Ellen

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.

This takes the cake ...

One of these things is quite like the other ... Epistemologists are standing by to take your calls.

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

Everything You Need to Know About Cooking Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis Octopus may seem like the sort of thing you only order while out at a fancy restaurant, but the truth is, you can cook this impressive sea creature at home—and it will impress your dinner guests. GILLIE HOUSTON August 02, 2018 Though the pink-ish, eight-tentacled, suction cup-covered sea creature might look like something from outer space, octopus has become a favorite seafood dish of earthlings across the globe. And while ordering octopus from a restaurant is familiar territory for many, the idea of cooking the slick sea creature at home is far more intimidating. The good news is that preparing your own octopus at home is much easier than you thought, and once you’ve got the hang of it, the sky—or sea—is the limit. Whether you’re roasting, grilling, or pan frying, get ready to have a new favorite homemade seafood dish you’ll be serving to highly impressed friends and family every chance you get. Cooking dinner shouldn't be complicated Sign up for our daily newsletter, Well Done, for expert cooking tips and foolproof recipes from your favorite food brands. SIGN UP Buying Your Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis The first rule of buying octopus is: more is more. Because this soft-bodied animal will significantly reduce in size during the cooking process, it’s important to invest in about 1 pound of octopus per person if you’re planning to serve yours as a main course. Though you won’t find octopus in every supermarket, it’s a good idea to phone ahead to your go-to grocery store or fishmonger to ask if they can put in a request for the mollusk. If the only octopus you can find is frozen (this will more than likely be the case), don’t fret—the freezing process actually benefits the end quality of your octopus, as the meat will tenderize while thawing, leaving you with a fresher, more tender product to work with. Prepping Your Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis The most intimidating part of your octopus journey will be preparing the meat to be cooked. If cooking from frozen, thaw your octopus for at least 24 hours in the refrigerator, ensuring that the meat is totally defrosted before moving on. Make sure to note if the recipe calls for cooking your octopus whole or pre-sliced. If you’re cutting up the meat before cooking, use a sharp chef’s knife or kitchen shears to remove each tentacle from the body by cutting it off at the base while the octopus lies flat on the cutting board. Though the octopus head meat is flavorful, and can definitely be included, you’ll want to remove the beak and ink sac before cooking and serving. While many pre-frozen octopuses will already have these removed, if you’re buying your octopus fresh, ask the fishmonger or seller to clean the body before wrapping up the product. If this service is unavailable, slice the body and head of the octopus down the middle, exposing the innards, beak, and ink sac. Cut away the center portion of the head, including the beak, and remove the ink sac and any other unappetizing parts of the animal from the center of the body. Cooking Your Octopus Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis Grilling One of the most popular—not to mention, delicious—ways to prepare an octopus is to throw those tentacles on the grill, adding some flavorful smoke and char to the end product. But before you take it to the charcoals, it’s important to pre-cook your octopus (you can do this in the oven or on the stovetop), as adding it straight to the grill as-is will result in tough, dry meat. First, you’ll want to cook your octopus with either the roasting or boiling methods described below to make sure the meat is completely tenderized before adding it to the grill for some extra pizzazz. To keep things simple and delicious, coat the pre-cooked octopus in olive oil and dress with salt and pepper before adding it to a high-temperature grill. After about 4-5 minutes on a covered grill, flipping once during the cooking time, the octopus should be perfectly browned and ready to dress with fresh lemon, herbs, and a little more oil. If you’re ready to try something a little next-level, give our Grilled Octopus with Korean Barbecue Sauce and Baby Bok Choy Slaw a go. Roasting Though roasting an octopus to tender perfection takes some extra time and labor, in the end it will be well worth it to get the texture of your dreams. Simply prinkle the octopus with a little salt and place it on a foil-covered baking sheet before covering the meat with another layer of foil and crimping the edges to create a completely contained cooking environment. Place the octopus on a low rack of a 250 degree oven for up to 2 hours, occasionally checking on the meat’s texture by piercing it with a fork until its reached your preferred tenderness level. Let the octopus cool uncovered before serving. Photo: Kelsey Hansen; Food Styling: Rishon Hanners; Prop Styling: Audrey Davis Braising For another low and slow cooking method, that similarly doesn’t require a pre-cook on the octopus, you should definitely consider braising. This is a great (and approachable) technique for cooking octopus, as the initial sear seals moisture into the meat and then, the octopus tenderizes and soaks up flavor as it simmers in your cooking liquid. Give it a try with our Braised Octopus in Tomato Sauce.

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.

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.

C'mon. What else is he gonna call it? My blog/Your blog? My Notablog? --Brant

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?

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.

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.

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

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:

Godwin's Law is not a law of physics nor a true counter argument to anything without an add on explanation. --Brant

It's a natural reaction to the Meatpuppet strategy, and less distasteful and cowardly. J

For another angle on the Jetstream and the Polar Vortex. HAARP!:

So, that's a "no." But, please, do carry on with the endless song and dance, the heaps of inessential document dumps and scarily colored pictures in the place where the science should go. J

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

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:

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

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

Scott Adams has his say as well. From today, excerpted from here.

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.

Comic interlude ...

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!

Meanwhile, we managed to dodge an ice age. http://reason.com/blog/2018/09/10/thank-a-farmer-if-you-hate-ice-ages

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?

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.

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.

“I am going to put a Hex on you ...” I have actually suspected that about you. Hiw long have you been practicing?

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

Aww

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...

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.

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

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.

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!

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

Wow. I'm embarrassed for Cohen. Career in the toilet. J

Right. And I’m stupid, stupid, stupid for believing my own observations and mind, instead of...Snopes! It’s comical, really. ”But, those elements are in fireworks, too, so, so, so it must all be stupid ?”

Superman III: Now Non-Fiction.

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.

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.