Leaderboard


Popular Content

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

  1. 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 .
  2. 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:
  3. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 2 points
  7. 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
  8. 2 points
  9. 2 points
  10. 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!
  11. 1 point
    How do you know so much while scientists know so little? --Brant
  12. 1 point
    Did I say equal parts dumb and insincere? Three here now! Holy shit this is the best.
  13. 1 point
    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.
  14. 1 point
    I want more CO2, taller forests, longer growing seasons, more people, less ice more bikinis, "Lost Venice" traveling collections at my local art museums, bikinis.
  15. 1 point
    Asshole, how to many times do you have to be told? Answer my questions, or fuck off. I’m not doing it your way. I’m not going to play your games.
  16. 1 point
    Maybe you missed the paper and the direct questions of whether or not burning fossil fuels is increasing atmospheric co2 concentrations. Do you care to insert your thoughts or just sit on the sidelines making accusations?
  17. 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
  18. 1 point
    I’m not living in 1995, douchebag. I’m simply recognizing the reality that there was a hiatus. I haven’t claimed that its currently happening, so don’t try to assign me that position, you dishonest twat. And I didn’t invent the term “hiatus.” It was a term used by the alleged “consensus” scientists and their governmental organizations during the many years that they were fretting about it and panicking about not being able to explain or account for it. Your attempts to downplay it or erase it won’t change the fact that it was a significant worry to the governmental climate organizations, and that a great deal of effort went into damage control. Perhaps you don’t remember all of that because you were like twelve at the time? Well, we remember it, and it wasn’t resolved just because a couple of government spokespersons announced that, hey, how about we were all mistaken, it never happened even though it was official consensus science, so now the new official position is that it wasn’t a big deal at all, even though the scientists aren’t going along with that? Yeah, that’s the ticket!
  19. 1 point
    Qanon.pub has less editorial whoopee added than Qmap.pub.
  20. 1 point
    Q sez not a lot, but has some Twitter suggestions in five new drops ... "Everything's Coming Up Roses ...!"
  21. 1 point
    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.
  22. 1 point
    Superlatives! Oceans were hottest on record in 2019 "That's a lot of zeroes."
  23. 1 point
    Hypothesis falsified: The signs at Glacier National Park warning that its signature glaciers would be gone by 2020 are being changed... https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html But it's still gonna happen, and we need to stop freedom cuz the scientists have made new predictions which are less specific and even more certain. Forget about those past predictions. Just go by how much confidence we're expressing right now. J
  24. 1 point
    The Q as Folk numpties are at work:
  25. 1 point
    "Did you delete Mike's analysis?" No. It is where it was -- embedded in the comment on the previous page. When we quote a post containing an embedded tweet, we need to include in our selection the 'white space' that follows the tweet. Eg, Voici ...
  26. 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.
  27. 1 point
    Here's a quick audio-tweet of the alternative-media fellow called Josh Bernstein. He calls for torturing traitorous Democrats. I mean, why not?
  28. 1 point
    Major persuasion fail ... Poll: Majority of Americans say impeachment inquiry into Trump is necessary
  29. 1 point
    Skeptic editor Michael Shermer in conversation with Peter Boghossian:
  30. 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
  31. 1 point
    Billy's mistake was that he went and done got religion. His M.O. had always been stinging snark, but in the past he limited himself to attacking Others' silly beliefs, while not revealing any that he held himself. Billy's at his best when tackling a fucked up mess, like, say, Pigero and clan for their kookball ideas. Take shots at their stupid shit, and you're untouchable because they have nothing to shoot back at if you haven't given them anything. But now Billy has fucked up by exposing himself. He has revealed some of his silly beliefs. He has invested his reputation in a few whacky notions that he can't support, and he doesn't know how to handle receiving exactly what he's always enjoyed dishing out. J
  32. 1 point
    There is no such thing as a “Q rally,” Q has called for no rallies. Are those Antifa pretending to be sincerely interested in Q? I have never heard of any of these clowns you hold up, Billy. It looks like bullshit to me. All of it. Try again.
  33. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  34. 1 point
    That's some mighty fine tasty steamed octopus! I've heard that Manhattan is 5 feet underwater. Is that true, Billy? Who should be punished first? How exciting! Anyway, do you have any answers to my questions yet? No? Still hoping that we'll forget what actual science is? J
  35. 1 point
  36. 1 point
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 1 point
    How integral or statistically significant is the albedo value to the overall maths or modeling? The first link you provided describes cloud formation predictions as a ‘wildcard’, what was the albedo value in the 2500 yr span that you have compared to the post industrial span and consequent temperature ‘spike(s)’ and if indeterminate, does any of that affect your confidence in predictions?
  40. 1 point
    He can’t do it. He can’t resist his stalker urges.
  41. 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
  42. 1 point
  43. 1 point
  44. 1 point
    Is Amazon Bad for the Postal Service? Or Its Savior? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/04/technology/amazon-postal-service-trump.html April 4, 2018 SEATTLE — Five times in the last week, President Trump has pointed his Twitter arrows at Amazon over what he insists is a bad deal for the United States Postal Service. Mr. Trump wrote on Tuesday that the agreement, which sets what Amazon pays the Postal Service for many orders, costs American taxpayers billions of dollars. “I am right about Amazon costing the United States Post Office massive amounts of money for being their Delivery Boy,” he wrote. [...] But the Postal Service says all such deals it makes are profitable — and must be by law. An independent body, the Postal Regulatory Commission, oversees the rates that the Postal Service charges for its products. By law, the agreements it cuts with corporate customers like Amazon must cover their “attributable costs” that directly result from their use of the postal network. Amazon helps lower those costs by organizing the packages it takes to the Post Office by destination ZIP code in over 35 sorting centers around the country, leaving less work that must be done by postal workers. The company relies on the Postal Service strictly for last-mile delivery to customers, short trips that further limit the cost of delivering each package. [...]
  45. 1 point
    Responsible to the employee and to "society". Which is not necessarily altruism, though invariably it gets packaged that way. This ("responsibility to stakeholders" in modern parlance), as opposed to the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith. Alright, let's move on. Allow me to assert, without proof, something I believe is most likely true: Amazon receives a sufficient number of job applicants for its entry-level positions that it could fill them all without hiring a single beneficiary of government assistance. So why don't they? Could it be because they are forbidden to ask? There are a whole host of questions you're not allowed to ask nowadays, like marital status...I'm not even going to start compiling a list here. Actually, I don't think Amazon seeks to exclude struggling single mothers, but note that they couldn't even if they wanted to. Ultimately what this comes down to is whether Amazon may pay market rates for labor. Since they're so successful are they to be held to a different standard than McDonalds? And they have some number of government contracts (which they're dependent on? What percentage of their revenue comes from the government? Is it a no-bid deal? Did they get an affirmative action preference?).
  46. 1 point
  47. 1 point
    Bill..the aliens among us are notttt reptilian, they are amphibious! Gawd, get your facts straight! ?
  48. 1 point
    Here is Mick West of Metabunk going through texts on cloud studies. If you don't say a shibboleth, rub your rabbit foot, and subtly angle your head away from the light (propane), then you might open your mind to the Null Hypothesis ... This speaks to 'persistence' ... and may serve to augment Jon Letendre's grasp of what he is up against. Knowing what the (shills? Cabal? Queer-Anon? Satanic Ritual Abusers?) bad guy is cooking up might act as an immunization against Them in Their larger project.
  49. 1 point
    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 ?”
  50. 1 point
    William, Sure. I went to my orders completed page at Amazon and typed in "conspiracy" just to make this fast. Four books came up, but I have more (I always haunt used book places, too ). I can't list those right off the bat because I have a crap-load of books and I didn't make a separate section for "conspiracy theory" like I did for Rand, writing, Scientology, evil (a few very interesting books ), religion, etc. Here are the 4: Conspiracies and Secret Societies: The Complete Dossier by Brad Steiger and Sherry Steiger The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths by Michael Shermer History Decoded: The 10 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time by Brad Meltzer and Keith Ferrell Demented Agitprop: The Myth and Madness of Agenda 21 Conspiracy Theories by Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones On a related note, I recently went through the audiobook: Secret Societies: Inside the Freemasons, the Yakuza, Skull and Bones, and the World's Most Notorious Secret Organizations by John Lawrence Reynolds. And, if I'm not mistaken, I have the print version called "Shadow People," but I can't seem to find it. This is a VERY GOOD book and it has a slant you would like. I have the following in my Amazon wish list. (sigh... I'll get to them some day--I have a way-too-long wish list up on Amazon ) The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory by Jesse Walker Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History by David Aaronovitch American Conspiracy Theories by Joseph E. Uscinski There are a bunch of others without the "conspiracy" keyword. In fact, I'm trying to remember where I got these titles from. I often look up books in the footnotes of books I am reading and, if I think one is interesting, I try to find it and usually put it on my wish-list if it is for sale at Amazon. I have a Scribd account and I probably have some things separated over there, too. That should do for now. I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this though. I have other priorities right now (creative writing stuff). btw - I just put Suspicious Minds on my wish list. Michael