Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/23/2018 in Blog Comments

  1. 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
  2. 1 point
  3. 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
  4. 1 point
    Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
  5. 1 point
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  6. 1 point
    Heh. I hadn’t visited Billy’s Twitter page in a while. The stuff he’s interested in and reposting is instructive. It seems that there are quite a lot of false things that he savors and needs to believe. J
  7. 1 point
    Michael, OK, we weren't on the same "religionist"-meaning wavelength. I definitely see William as scientistic. Very much so, and I've seen him that way practically from my earliest acquaintance with his posts on the old SoloHQ. I think that he gets major self-esteem boost from considering himself fighting for Science-Good against Religion-Bad. And he constantly preaches scientism in his indirect fashion. So, agreed about his being religionist in the sense you've been meaning. All the same, scientistic as I think William is, I nonetheless don't see him believing specifically in AGW because "scientists say." He is aware that there are a lot of good scientists who say nay. I think he mistakenly believes - because of developments in the Arctic - that the yay-sayers have been vindicated. But fine with me not arguing about that. I wouldn't want to get into the details in any case since I don't consider educating William worth the time and trouble. Ellen
  8. 1 point
    Slither slither ... Ellen
  9. 1 point
    Jon, Neither did I. I don't think it was publicized anywhere important. On the other hand, the entire world through the fake news mainstream media knew about the impeachment demonstrations. They didn't report on the turnout (or lack of turnout to be more exact), but everyone knew about the impeachment demonstrations. Michael
  10. 1 point
    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
  11. 1 point
  12. 1 point
    Bullshit. Cirrus clouds persist for hours on end. The water trail from a jet is made of the same stuff as Cirrus Clouds. H2O in a solid state which occurs shortly after gaseous H2O condenses into liquid H2O. All the nasty gasses are invisible. SO2, NOx CO2.
  13. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  14. 1 point
    The pupil has not demonstrated an understanding of “tiresome reading suggestion #34.” So much for in his own words. Worst fake professor ever. Cartman is a better fake cop. Cartman fakes having been in ‘Nam better than this.
  15. 1 point
    Jonathan, I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.) Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here). Ah... the matters of the heart... She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke. Objectivism in action, that it is... Michael
  16. 1 point
  17. 1 point
    Huh? Doesn't it have everything to do with this thread? As in, if we don't completely get rid of freedom, and if we don't immediately start punishing evil deniers, then, by the end of next week, the entire planet will be on fire just like that, followed shortly by everything being five thousand feet underwater due to all of the ice, everywhere, melting? J
  18. 1 point
  19. 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
  20. 1 point
    This got some traction on Reddit: "It’s Time to Boot Climate Deniers Off Social Media." I wonder if the person behind this article would go on a live podcast with us ...
  21. 1 point
    William made starkly obvious how dumb his thinking on climate issues is with this question: Ellen
  22. 1 point
    Carbonic acid in the atmosphere ... from the Spencer Weart online verson of The Discovery of Global Warming, featuring a brief overview of the work of John Tyndall in the Victorian era: See also: "John Tyndall: founder of climate science?"
  23. 1 point
    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.
  24. 1 point
    I find this to be a slippery slope. Hiroshima was a product of humans. Just because we evolved in nature and utilize parts of isn't a safe implication that what we are doing isn't destructive. Human history is quite frequently filled with humans acting as if there were no repercussions for their actions when in hindsight we realize how ignorantly we acting. I absolutely agree that adding to the shared knowledge base is key to human growth. Seems a bit pointless to do so, however, when given access to the information individuals simply disregard the warnings in favour of their own whims.
  25. 1 point
    Any changes in the system are driven by changes. This seems obvious but there is an often overlooked implication of that statement. Even though an aspect of the system might have a large factor in the energy balance (albedo) it isn't relevant to changes unless it is changing as well. Albedo is made up of 3 main components scattering by the land and surface, clouds, and reflection from ice and snow. Of these 3 factors, the first and last are changing the most. Land use changes (clearing of forests) creates an increase in albedo while melting of snow and sea ice creates a decrease in albedo. Clouds overall aren't changing from much to none. I've seen some reports putting them at a slight decline, but currently can't find that. So as to whether or not they are impactful to albedo, I'd have to say no. What is referred to as the wild card, or uncertainty with clouds is what kind of feedback clouds will be. Everyone recognizes without issue that clouds reflect sunlight, but they also trap heat. How a cloud impacts the system not only depends on the cloud type that forms but also the timing of them. Obviously nighttime clouds are rather lousy at reflecting incoming light but do a wonderful job of trapping heat. Overall, the feedback effect of clouds is currently considered 'likely positive' (https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3402). Clouds are what will bring the system back into equilibrium eventually. As I see it, the simplistic explanation is: Warming causes a decrease in relative humidity -> causes a decrease in cloud production -> less cloud production means a gradual buildup of specific humidity -> this eventually restores the hydrologic (cloud) cycle The hydrologic cycle can't really be fully restored though until the system has stopped warming. Current observations are specific humidity is increasing but relative is still in decline. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2013-state-climate-humidity Good general link about clouds https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/cloud-cover
  26. 1 point
    C'mon. What else is he gonna call it? My blog/Your blog? My Notablog? --Brant
  27. 1 point
    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.
  28. 1 point
    Thanks for the question. First, a link. Yes the number they are using is 6m, rather than .5m, but there are other assumptions being made by your question that are inaccurate. So I'll focus on those inaccuracies. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-could-rise-at-least-6-meters/ Yes, for 2C warming the middle of the road number is around .5m of SLR (sea level rise). This is not the amount of SLR you can expect once you've reached 2C warmer, it's the amount you can expect once the system has fully equilibriated and is back to being in dynamic balance. I say all that because we aren't there. We've warmed over 1C already, and there's currently another 1-1.5C of warming in the pipeline if we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow. As we continue to increase co2 concentrations we are only adding more warming into that pipeline. I guess my main point here is it's an ok assumption that we might only rise .5m in 80 yrs, it's not ok to think that that is all the SLR that will occur. I also agree that 80yrs seems like a while for humans to migrate and adapt. However, many of the towns, cities, and villages that do lie within this danger zone of SLR aren't going to be salvageable. One can't simply relocate the city of Miami for example (although their issue is partly subsidence, I hope it's illustrative of the issue nonetheless). The other things that is glossed over by these statements and questions revolves around the inherent chaos of storm systems in these areas. Many coastal towns have been built to account for these storm surges safely. Be it through barriers or simply proximity to the coastline in more remote parts of the world, these natural and man-made barriers or going to prove to be less effective. This raises the long term costs and damages associated with SLR. Now, will we rise 6m? I hope not. That's very drastic change given the timespan. That's the key issue and concern behind AGW after all. It's not whether or not the ice caps have disappeared in the past, they have. It's not whether or not we've been warmer in the past, we have. It's not about whether or not co2 has been higher in the past, it has. The issues surrounding the current changes to the system is how quickly they are changing. The most recent mass extinction (PETM - Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum) event seems to most likely have been driven by a very large outgassing of methane. Methane is a more potent ghg than co2, however it has a relatively short lifecycle in the atmosphere. That's because methane (ch4) breaks down into co2 and water, and the co2 has a very long adjustment time in the atmosphere. So this co2 can have a very long and persistent effect. My reason for mentioning the PETM is the current rate of change far exceeds the rate's seen in the PETM. The 1C warming we've witnessed over the last 100yrs would have taken 2500yrs during the PETM, and it wiped out approx 50-60% of the biosphere. These mass extinction events don't happen literally overnight, only figuratively. Too much of the dismissal by individuals on the basis of lack of evidence, I think , is due to not witnessing a catastrophe due to AGW during their individual lifetime. My personal thoughts on it is that the human lifespan and experience isn't long enough for any individual to realize the full impacts of what is happening. Each subsequent generation going forward will see a slightly less productive, slightly more shallow biosphere. There won't be a morning that comes where all of humanity to wake up and realize something terrible has happened, like a bomb going off. It will be a much slower and more gradual slide and to me, that's more dangerous because it simply leaves the doors open to individuals to dismiss as some other cause.
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 1 point
    There really is no global climate. There are regional climate regimes governed by latitude, topography, nearness to the oceans, the presence of forests and grasslands, etc. In general climate is warmer in the tropics which receive sunlight nearly directly than at the poles where the sunlight cames in aslant due to the tilt of the earth to the plane of the ecliptic. The climate subsystems interact because heat is transferred from the higher temperature regions to the lower temperature regions by the oceans and atmosphere.
  32. 1 point
    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
  33. 1 point
    He can’t do it. He can’t resist his stalker urges.
  34. 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
  35. 1 point
    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:
  36. 1 point
    It's not about "boisterous" or "snowflakes", it's not about "strong" or "weak". That dichotomy is barbarism. There will always be a portion of society that will try to use primitive tactics and actions to try to gain advantage over others. It's your forum, you choose to allow or not allow whatever behavior. Civility exists, but for it to exist there has to be rules and those rules enforced, otherwise the barbaric will have their way. The rational and moral will be impacted by the "strong" and those who seek superiority over others. Perhaps the rational and moral will seek out "safe spaces"---as what it is currently being called here on OL---if the behavior of others is primitive and aggressive. But like you've said before, you pay the bills here on OL. I'm just one of those long-term members.
  37. 1 point
    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
  38. 1 point
    Vote for democrats, dudes, so we can impeach Trump and the Koch brothers, and indict Rush Limbaugh, and fine MSK, bro!
  39. 1 point
    yawn... False conspiracy theories are the real problem say the elitists. Unending war for profit, mass surveillance, screwing the middle class with bogus crony corporatist schemes, using slave labor and calling it globalism, and so on don't really count to these folks, do they? Well, here's a fact for those who care about facts. Talking about false conspiracies have not caused even 0.1% or the enormous damage and loss of innocent life the elitist boneheads in the ruling class have caused. It's all the fault of the false conspiracies... So say the elitist boneheads on the way to the bank, their power centers and their occupations of unearned privilege. False conspiracies do one thing in reality, though. They make it hard has hell for the elitists to make people agree with them. They need the common people to SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP GODDAMMIT. How else can they perpetrate their garbage and crony scams in peace? So now they are writing books asking nicely and with kindness for people to sit down and shut up goddammit. Fuck them. We don't need fewer false conspiracy theories. We need more. We need robust debate, always, not goddam gatekeepers who think they are better than others to the extent they get to tell all people what they can look at and consider. Most people are good. They are not cattle. They'll figure things out over time. They always have. And they sure as hell don't need idiots from the ruling class to tell them what to think. Here's a far better book by Tucker Carlson that looks at precisely the kind of person who wants such unearned power. It's No. 1 on Amazon right now. I've read it and it's one of the best books on current politics I have ever read. Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution And there's this. Tucker doesn't mean "selfish" in a Randian sense. He means it in a childish and thuggish sense. Hurting people on purpose and taking their things. My favorite observation by Tucker is the sheer incompetence of the current ruling class. He said there has never been a more incompetent ruling class in human history. This batch is just plain stupid. I agree. The've turned science into a religion, are now working on getting rid of due process and believing this is good, and so on. And not one of them can do a goddam thing of value. One video I saw elsewhere asked an interesting question. If you were stranded on a desert island, who would you want to be stranded with? People who wag their finger at you over gender identity crises, who call you racist every time you disagree with them, and so on? Or plumbers, carpenters, fishermen, and so on? Give me a conspiracy theorist any day of the week over an asshole elitist who wants to rule me because he thinks he's a superior life form. He's not a superior life form. He's a goddam fool who's time of cultural relevance is--thankfully--coming to an end... Michael
  40. 1 point
  41. 1 point
  42. 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
  43. 0 points
    Oh, you're paving the way for the statists but you aren't a statist. Look, let's let CO2 happen; it's going to anyway. More plant and animal life AND the planet qua planet isn't at risk. Just the polluting humanoids. Let them eat their just desserts. Now correlate your supposed scientific position with us living in an interglacial period likely to end sooner rather than later. Maybe saving humanity--is that what you're about?--is pumping into the atmosphere all the CO2 we can as fast as we can? Your essential triteness has been noted.If you're honest here you are trite and if dishonest you're that and trite. Now about a ad h. There is a ad h and simple ad h. The latter is not a logical fallacy. --Brant
  44. 0 points
    The implcit working premise that CC science is neither corrupt nor corruptible does not pave the way for a rational discussion about CC. And to call it CC instead of AGW is chocolate frosting on a lemon cake. --Brant
  45. 0 points
    So, we are metaphorical fish? That Rand quotation about reason is great but literally wrong while being mostly right. --Brant
  46. 0 points
    William, See what? You do favor big government idiot power mongers and you do preach your manmade climate change religion. All right here on OL. In post after post. That's what I see. How is that any different than QAnon re credibility? Michael
  47. 0 points
    That is correct. It’s quite futile, too, it’s a loser topic. No one cares or even knew who this particular M Brotherhood terrorist “journalist” was until last week. ”Get irate, everyone!! The new crown prince, who Cheeto said is better than the last one has killed a terrorist we are calling a journalist. Isn’t that horrible of Cheeto? Don’t you hate him, now? Well, don’t you? Hello? Anyone listening? Hello”
  48. 0 points
    Bu buh but skeptical instruments of reasoning are bad. Skepticism and criticism are acts of kooky science denial. Deniers, deniers! No? Did the rules change at whim again? J
  49. 0 points
    We still don’t know what happened with the mass shooting in Vegas, so please forgive me if I give a zero chance we ever find out who Khashoggi really was or why MBS took him out. Heres the key fact: When these things happened back when SA was solidly deep state, none of this pearl-clutching occurred, and the military arms sales to SA continued unabated. You know about this event because SA is not on their side anymore.
  50. 0 points
    They keep adding bogus lines for the last 20 years.