Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/05/2019 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. 1 point
    Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?
  7. 1 point
    To call it facts requires you to provide evidence of such happening. I'll wait.
  8. 1 point
    That's become painfully obvious. What science education is coming to that we get something like Brad thinking he's being scientific. Also: Greenhouse gases don't "impede" energy transfer. They act by re-radiation, not by interfering with convection. Also: MSK, I think that TMJ was being facetious. Ellen
  9. 1 point
    This analogy really demonstrates either 1. Your lack of understanding the subject in the least bit or 2. That you are a completely dishonest broker in this conversation. Based on your tone, reliance on name calling, and complete refusal to answer a simple question that is very relevant to establish humans as the driver of the current climate, I'm going with #2.
  10. 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.
  11. 1 point
    Mankind's contribution to warming is considered to be 100%. Actually higher by some because without increased co2 all indications are we would have cooled, so we've offset the cooling plus added warming. You can falsify that humans are the cause of warming by delivering us a mechanism to explain the warming.
  12. 1 point
    Oh, brother. You aren't addressing what I said. You just shifted the discussion. I really thought you were a lot smarter. Let's just say you are, but you aren't using your smarts. Looking for smarts. --Brant
  13. 1 point
    I'm trying to start at the beginning so we can pinpoint a specific disagreement. And I've already stated, I'm not going to attempt to address all at once as it would be pointless. But thanks for acting as if I hadn't already stated that.
  14. 1 point
    Perhaps time for self reflection if these are common responses to statements you make. Still waiting on evidence of your assertions, by the way.
  15. 1 point
    Is or isn't the burning of fossil fuels driving up co2 concentrations in the atmosphere?
  16. 1 point
    These are your words. I have you a list of hypothesis. They have the years the predictions were made. The would be falsified had they not come true. What else is there to answer in regards to your question?
  17. 1 point
    From 'Big Think': Original essay at PaulGraham.com: How to Disagree.
  18. 1 point
    Jonathan, That's a very interesting question. I don't think he's expressing anything at all. I think he's collecting specimens and sorting them according to a custom-made taxonomy embedded in his vanity. There's a story at the end, I'm sure, and William is the hero of that story. That is, he's a flawed hero, but mucho hero-level heroic nevertheless, striking blows for truth and social justice where ever an oppressed victim may be found, and saving the planet for The Children and whales and shit. That's for later. For now, I feel he is in list compiling mode most of the time. There's a catch I think he doesn't see, too. Lists get awfully boring unless you do them right. ABT works really well on lists. See here: Narrative Is Everything: The ABT Framework and Narrative Evolution by Randy Olson. ABT means And, But and Therefore. A quick example: Here is List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, and List Item 4, and List Item 5, and List Item 6, and List Item 7, etc. Boring boring boring.. BUT Try this: List Item 1, and List Item 2, and List Item 3, BUT Opinion or Conclusion or Other List Item 1, and Other List Item 2, and Other List Item 3, and Other List Item 4, but Opinion or Conclusion, THEREFORE list items with but and therefore are far more interesting than those with just and. Once William gets the hang of it, he might start peeping his head out again from his clam shell and showing he exists as a person. For now, though, adding to lists is all he's got, poor thing. (Believe it or not, Olson came up with this trying to sell climate change. However, it works like gangbusters for selling the opposite. If the climate change people won't pick up this tool made by one of their own and use it, I sure will. It's a great tool. ) Michael
  19. 1 point
    Jonathan, The answer is social and pure value judgment, not rational. They'll kick his ass right out of the Chosen People club if he treats this issue with true intellectual seriousness. The club is more important than the truth. That's why the intellectual arguments from these people consistently sound good, but when examined are not good. Once in the club, one does not need to make sense. One merely needs to dazzle with bullshit and snark a little for proof. In fact, making sense is the surest way of getting thrown out. The storyline abides... Michael
  20. 1 point
    My favorite thing in all of this was Brad's original acceptance of my questions about following the requirements of the scientific method. Initially, he had no problems understanding my questions and their relevance, because, at the time, he believed that the climate alarmists must have been complying with true science, and that the answers could be easily found. He has since discovered otherwise, and is therefore now dodging the questions, and trying to treat them as if the don't exist, or are not worthy of consideration, while offering no explanation of why the are suddenly not worthy. So, as is true with Billy, open honest discussion is to be avoided, and all that's on the menu is mound after mound of Tasty Steamed Octopus.
  21. 1 point
    Qanon.pub has less editorial whoopee added than Qmap.pub.
  22. 1 point
  23. 1 point
    Jon, No he isn't. Who has he convinced so far? Or who has he silenced? People who already agree with him? That's being inept at propaganda. I like the pretty pictures, though. Michael
  24. 1 point
    We get closer and closer to the Great Awakening ... "Hi, my name is 'Q' -- I have a Top Sekrit Classification, which allows me access to terrific insider information like, um, Fox News tweets. I love my job."
  25. 1 point
    But yeah, let's trust the anonymous Q source who posts to racist lair of scumbags run by a pigfarmer. "Objectivism, anyone?"
  26. 1 point
  27. 1 point
    The inimitable Trump hater Rick Wilson** asks the obvious question, "Is William Barr the Head of DOJ or QAnon?" -- the second most obvious question being "have PACs hired you to make blistering video ads in 2020?" ______ **"Apostate GOP Media Guy, Dad, Pilot, Hunter, Amateur Epistemologist, Cognitive Engineer. Writer.' Sez his Medium bio. I wonder what it would take for him to come over to the President's side. He's now written two hatefests ... 'Human scum' quotient one over one?
  28. 1 point
    William, I hate to see Milo like that. He needs to get his sass back and come out swinging. I hope he does, but I don't know where his head is at right now. My biggest fear for him is if he turned to drugs or something like that. As to the event itself, I don't know anything about it other than what I saw in these tweets. It seems like celebrity gossip dressed up as more than it is. Michael
  29. 1 point
    The Q as Folk numpties are at work:
  30. 1 point
    Can anyone demonstrate this (icon remains) happening? Or give an example? If so, please do so. This is, as they say, false -- a false allegation. Following will be three tweets that I will have posted to test the "Icon Remains" claim/hypothesis -- while other active members may perhaps fork up supporting warrants. I will leave them up for an hour, then delete them ... to see what kind of remnant is retained once they disappear from Twitter. Members, feel free to do your own experiments here with tweets that are subsequently deleted via your Twitter account. I don't know if Jon Letendre has an active Twitter account, but expect that if he does he can then easily test his contention about 'icon remains' ...
  31. 1 point
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
    Frederick Brennan has an opinion about 8kun:
  34. 1 point
    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 ...
  35. 1 point
    Visual pastiche on the "Greenbaum Speech," a touchstone of theory undergirding iatrogenic harms in therapy, during the Satanic Ritual Abuse memory wars. Key words: Corydon Hammond, Bennett Braun, Judith Peterson.
  36. 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?
  37. 1 point
    “Abused your position” ”incompatible with your duty” The Constitution provides expulsion with 2/3rds vote of his House colleagues. Could Diddler be out on the street by next week?
  38. 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
  39. 1 point
    I think you're right. Billy doesn't get it, and can't get it. It's like Merlin and Tony not having the ability to grasp Aristotle's Wheel, and Bob not having the ability to grasp the Polar Travel Puzzle. Cognitive limitations. J
  40. 1 point
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. 1 point
    This is more related to themes covered by various personalities in this thread (the story is in the context of Australia): Not everyone cares about climate change, but reproach won’t change their mind.
  44. 1 point
    This has very little to do with the topics covered in this thread, but is a pretty cool piece of 360° video. More details on the item here: Watch a Raging Forest Fire Surround You in 360 Degrees -- you can use your mouse to change the angle of view.
  45. 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
  46. 1 point
    William made starkly obvious how dumb his thinking on climate issues is with this question: Ellen
  47. 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?"
  48. 1 point
    There's never a bad time to think about atmospheric physics. "How does it work?"
  49. 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.
  50. 1 point
    Blah blah blah... Jail is not jail if you don't use the word sentence... Right... What a crock. I'm actually glad this happened. By jailing Manafort before the trial, The Swamp has openly declared war--using guns--on President Trump. Now he can act against them as the one attacked. Now we will see who has the larger reach and influence with America's armed forces and law enforcement. As the saying goes in Brazil, the bird who swallows stones better know the size of its own asshole... Michael