Leaderboard

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...)

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 .

Sorry, I guess I'm not understanding the issue in regards to falsifiability. Once again, falsifiable hypothesis and their approx date: And their conclusions:

Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael

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

TG, I agree. Sometimes reality is a bitch to swallow. But swallow it we must. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed. And one reality is that a war is far more important to win than any single battle for solidifying a system of government. In our system, a crime must be committed before it can be punished. The people who voted for their local governments in the current trouble spots in America elected assholes who crapped all over the police. No wonder they are walking off the job or doing things half-assed. The only way to fix that is let the crimes be committed, make all due appropriate legal cases and paperwork, then go in and clean it up without mercy. Then make sure everybody knows what the rules are for there on out, and make sure they know bad things will happen to them if they try to infringe those rules to harm others. You and I, for as much as we feel for the innocent victims in these situations, are not the ones who commit the crimes. The criminals are. So feel bad, if you must. I certainly do when I see distress signals of the innocent. I think I have an oxytocin overload inside me. I can turn into mush on a dime. But never guilty. Never feel guilty for something wrong you did not do. Accept the reality that in a situation like Seattle, you did nothing wrong. If you accept that frame, and you believe in law and order based on individual rights, you will opt for permanent solutions, not temporary appeasements and gestures that are easily undone just to stop the suffering of someone you did not attack, but someone else did. Michael

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">

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.

Q and QAnon having a bit of a ruckus over Obama.org and modern Twitter-enabled website coding. Q-Watcher Feminist Proper Gander wraps up the story in a series of tweets: The kerfuffle started with this Q drop (screen cap from the site Qanon.pub) : "Reconcile" ... Next came drop 4437 ... Some QAnon folks were critical, some were gyrating wildly to explain away the error. The kerfuffle rests on a misunderstanding of how Twitter Cards work their magic in a few lines of HTML code in the 'head' portion of a website. <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/Q3/q4436.png"> These lines in the <head> of an HTML document "fill in" a tweet from the particular page: The <meta> code on the web page can of course be changed, especially if the body of page itself is updated. If you change the code to insert a new Summary Card with Large Image, then the change will propagate on Twitter's servers. The next time you tweet from the same page, the image may be different than it was at an earlier point. So ... what does this have to do with the kerfuffle ongoing in Q-World? Well, because Twitter itself delivers the image from its own servers (rather than merely 'passing through' the URL of the image file on your server), previously posted Tweets are themselves updated. This can appear to show some kind of chicanery -- if the image rendered in an old tweet shows a 'new' image.

I read this and the more I went along, the more I kept thinking it was so beside the point. Talk about irrelevance on steroids. But I ended up reading the whole thing. I took a look at the author, Marc-André Argentino. He's a crank funded by globalist establishment think tanks. He tries to come up with cutesy sounding terms like "infodemic" and so on. His main interest is how to find ways to shut down free speech, especially on the Internet. His main smokescreen, from what little I looked through search results, is fighting the QAnon dragon. He has even proposed that QAnon is a public health threat. He haunts the fringe of QAnon with regularity, so it's obvious he is a paid troll. See here (direct quote from his article): Two hours every Sunday for twelve weeks? LOL... I bet he feels like a regular James Bond. The organization that funds him, the Global Network on Extremism and Technology is even more interested in shutting down free speech, in monitoring the Internet and so on through the guise of fighting terrorists--mostly Saudi Arabian and far-right terrorists. I mean, after all, terrorists only come from Saudi Arabia and the far-right, right? I took a look at the peeps at that site. Impressive. But if you know what the term "public-private partnerships" means, and all of the peeps are involved in that activity, you will know the essence of this organization. In other words, the Global Network on Extremism and Technology is an elitist ruling class think tank focusing on top-down control of communications media, which means a propaganda firm. The article was posted at a site called "The Conversation," which has the slogan of "Academic rigor, journalistic flair." The lady in charge is Beth Daley (Editor and General Manager). I never heard of her, so I looked her up. She's essentially a manmade climate change missionary fighting the good fight at local levels. But back to my feeling of wasting my time as I read the article. How relevant is that thing to the real world? After all, Marc-André Argentino has been doing some rip-rory-righteous infiltration by watching a fringe QAnon group online for twelve weeks in a row on Sundays. Let's let this Sherlock tell you in his own words from the article: Three hundred whole accounts? And how many people, pray tell, watch the service from each account? Obviously one. Why one? Well, can you see the whole family or a group of friends sitting around a computer screen to watch a YouTube video every Sunday for two hours? That just doesn't happen. So, in essence, Mr. Argentino is so worried about three hundred QAnon people, he thinks a new religious movement will come out of it and threaten the world. Well, if this guy thinks the important part of QAnon is only made up of 300 fringe people, he's a crank. So I wonder what in the hell he is really being paid for. The answer is obvious. He is being paid to manufacture propaganda. Michael

A Twitter thread by the author of the Conversation story, adding more detail:

I think it was late 2017, wasn't it Billy? When you discovered I had been reading Q. Maybe early 2018, but very shortly after Q started posting. Your reaction was mocking, of course, but I sensed a little bit of fear, a little bit of anxiety, like you actually believe it yourself but just hate all the implications, because you have chosen your side and it is opposite the Q side, etc. Your reaction told me to look even more closely and take it even more seriously as possibly real. Thank you. And now, in the middle of a scamdemic, after months of basically total radio silence from you, you post this. Thank you. Thank You! Reader, please do look into it, because if Billy and his mainstream media heroes are correct, then these Q people are dangerous and they have to be challenged head-on. How else to do that than to familiarize yourself with their crazy nonsense. It is all compiled here: https://qmap.pub/

An article by Adrienne LaFrance, "The Prophecies of Q," in the Atlantic.

Did you read that, Billy? Cuddlemuffin is free to post more recipes for tasty steamed octopus. Hooray!

Still no answers.

Red herring. We aren't taking about how the climate change before the industrial revolution. I've already covered the mechanisms that lead the planet in and out of ice ages. That mechanism is in the wrong sign (negative) to explain current changes and there is not record of changes happening as abruptly as they currently are. Go back and read what I told you about Milakovitch Cycles. Funny that you didn't think my reply was applicable then.

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 throwing an extra blanket on you, for example.

How do you know so much while scientists know so little? --Brant

Energy balance of the planet has to do with how well heat moves from source (the sun in this case) to the sink (space). Greenhouse gases impede that movement.

Did I say equal parts dumb and insincere? Three here now! Holy shit this is the best.

So just to be clear, you can't answer whether or not human emissions have increased atm co2? Do you think that might be a requisite for moving forward in the discussion in determining whether or not humans are responsible for warming? This is why it's pointless for me to address all your questions.

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.

Fight the next ice age! Burn fossil fuels! --Brant I don't think that will work, BTW

Did he or didn't he claim increasing co2 would increase temperature? Page 16, if you want to check your answer before responding. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjNiciivbjnAhUH7awKHTVnCdoQFjAFegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Cm1sb1Pjyd2Sph86m9hd0

Most would consider a mad extinction bad. There previous mad extinction too over 10k years to occur, it's not an overnight or even single generation event. More conspiracy. That's yours to deal with, not mine. Bring evidence next time.

I'll answer one at a time, there's no need to spam answers to all your questions if you won't accept a single answer. So again, falsifiable predictions, I've given a list, it has the years they were made. Are you still questioning this?

Pithy. If you are a fan of skeptical inquiry, Poker & Politics should be in your Twitter feed. Glory, glory, Halleluja ...

Deleted. Gone. No longer here, departed. Gone up country to a good home. It was an unfinished blog entry that I failed to detect & delete during the earlier ruckus. If only you could communicate without loaded language and personal insults ... [Edited to add in a '&']

Q sez not a lot, but has some Twitter suggestions in five new drops ... "Everything's Coming Up Roses ...!"

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

A bullshit dump. --Brant

"We" didn't put any "heat" into the oceans. --Brant ". . . here comes the sun . . . ."

Whoever or whatever "Q" is, he or she or they are probably enjoying the break, not having posted since December 29 2019. This break has had zero effect on propagation of the 'cleaned-up' version of the mighty conspiracy-of-all-conspiracies ... from Mike Rothschild: The article is here. As "Q" might say, The 'silent' war continues.

Man, you are funny as hell. Where else could we be lectured on adhereing to Objectivism by an unusually dumb leftist who hates us and hates Rand and Objectivism? I used to hunt pheasant and quail in Nebraska. I talked business for hours with locals in their lunch counters in town. Hogs are big business. The installations are modern, industrial-scale. They are enormous facilities that generate enormous cash flow. It has been very competitive for decades. The people still at it are so because of their high business acumen. He is probably enormously intelligent and wealthy. You just hate him because he is helping expose the evil of your side. You hate him because he is helping, in his spare time, to take down all your corrupt, fascist political heroes. You hate him because all your fascist friends who tried to stop him could not stop him. You hate him because you lost to him, again. What’s so cute about you is how dumb you are in saying he is a stupid pig farmer, because all it means is that you and all your genius friends cannot prevail against one stupid pig farmer.

Penultimate. Trap gun slogan [OBS]. Think thank thunk. One hour of old glory as touted by the mysterious entity ... this does not seem like Q-level insider knowledge. They may need to get caffeinated and a bit blasted on marijuana, to clear away the staleness and low energy.

Millerism and the Great Disappointment. For Patreon supporters ...

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

From David Gilbert at VICE: "Who has seen the wind?"

There are no coincidences ... It will be interesting to see the roll-out of OLer comment on Syria's travails, in light of the Turkish desire to push the SDF out of areas under its present control. The hoopla is besides the point, I think. The confusion is the key. Cui bono and all that ... The President said it all: "[Turkey's] long-planned operation into Northern Syria" ... I encourage commenters-in-waiting to orient themselves to the 'long-planned operation.' Folks with long-standing interest in the area will have the advantage in putting names to acronyms: SDF, PYD, KRG, PKK, KDP ...

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 ..."

She's better than Billy at serving up tasty steamed octopus! Dayyam! People are DYING!!!! Fuckers need to be punished right goddamned now for future catastrophes! We can't wait. Immediate pain to the grups for what they done to Greta's childhood and her future of doom. J

Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil

The Gang from QAnon Anonymous podcast hooked up with the jaded, middle-class meddler Jared Holt. Maybe we could assemble a list of OL Member-Approved QAnon-whisperers. My guess is that Praying Medic, InTheMatrixxx, Liz Crokin and Joe M (StormIsUponUs) would be in a Top Ten.

Jon, Is the AnOn66 personage someone you think is a fake Q fan? I thought you'd posted some AnOn66 things, but maybe I'm misremembering. Ellen

Jonathan, This particular news item caught the attention of POTUS. He just retweeted this: Leave it to President Trump to be helpful to his critics. He's using his massive audience to help the manmade climate change people brand themselves correctly. Michael

"Fuck off, pedophile."

Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael

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!"

The "Greenhouse Effect" (GHE) has been discussed a lot on this site -- at various times and various places. Ba'al Chatzaf (aka Bob Kolker) has been relatively constant in explaining it to readers¹, eg: Brant is on record as accepting the GHE, with caveats. My total impression is that Brant is more concerned with the 'green religion' extremism ... Jonathan hasn't stated his opinions or particular take in his own words (acceptance/rejection/skepticism) on the GHE explicitly -- at least not in so many words. Jon Letendre hasn't, as far as I know, ever discussed the GHE in this thread or any other. Michael hasn't explicitly explored the GHE in earlier discussions. I think his note serves as an open door to re-explore the concept ... In the opening topic post I quoted Bob giving a brief further explanation -- re-introducing the concepts of radiation: Tyndall, Arrhenius ... Ellen Stuttle accepts the Greenhouse Effect, but not any 'alarmist' claims that knock on from it: The Sun is the primary driver of global temperatures. CO2, water vapor and other trace "greenhouse" gases modulate (in some cases) or amplify (in other cases) the Sun's effect on the atmosphere. The other modulator of the Sun's effects are the seas and oceans. Water has a very high heat capacity which means it can absorb a lot of heat with only small temperature increases. My goal in establishing this topic here at Friends and Foes came a few years ago. Approaching difficult issues in an 'objective' manner, per Ayn Rand's Objectivism, means identifying concepts and then integrating them in a hierarchy². Despite the bad blood and personal invective and general agitation we might feel the need to express, I do believe that 'starting at the beginning' with the concept Greenhouse Effect will pay dividends to everyone who seeks reliable knowledge of the key concepts underlying. I also ask that folks contributing to this discussion leave off the personal insults and mind-reading and ascribing disgusting moral failures or 'tribal evil' ... or at least consider editing their contributions to lessen the effect of personalizing discussion. This is my blog, Friends and Foes. Appreciate that a highly-contested issue can trigger emotion. Try to reduce the temperature of the discussion by removing needlessly personal remarks and abusive terms from points made in argument. I have finished my own "cooling off period," and will strive going forward to edit out any "you people" and "your morality" and "your ugly motives" from my own contributions. Just a thought. I won't be moderating any additions to the discussion in the coming days, and probably won't ever. I respect Michael's ban-hammer, and his sensitivities given the recent ruckus between me and "you are a boyfucker" Jon Letendre. Brad, please respect that some folks here will consider you an "invader" and perhaps not be interested in anything you have to contribute. There are a lot of "silent readers" here who can be reached, however. If anyone wants to rag on and become insulting, consider using Dissenter. Otherwise, re-read materials here on The Principle of Charity ... and 'Be Best' ... I will briefly lock this thread as I edit this post (I use a text-to-speech app to check for errors in spelling and grammar). __________ 1. Bob had a small excursion into acceptance of the Gerlich-Tseuschner proposition. 2. “Since the definition of a concept is formulated in terms of other concepts, it enables man, not only to identify and retain a concept, but also to establish the relationships, the hierarchy, the integration of all his concepts and thus the integration of his knowledge. Definitions preserve, not the chronological order in which a given man may have learned concepts, but the logical order of their hierarchical interdependence.” (See “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, Rand, Page 40, Kindle Edition, https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Objectivist-Epistemology-Expanded-Second-ebook/dp/B002OSXD8C/ )

Yeah, sorry about that. Sometimes, since I primarily tweet from mobile, some interpretation is required. bed -> need So where to start. Are we in agreement that the GHE is the reason that the earth is over an effective temperature of 255K, or do we need to back track further?