Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/05/2019 in Blog Comments

  1. 2 points
    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...)
  2. 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 .
  3. 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:
  4. 2 points
    Jonathan, I looked. Nothing but retweets. Lot's of 'em. (burp...) Michael
  5. 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
  6. 1 point
    Here is an article from Jemima Kelly at the Financial Times. I will stretch the criteria for fair-use as much as I can:
  7. 1 point
    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">
  8. 1 point
    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.
  9. 1 point
    I started to blush until I realized you didn't call me a genius. Ah, well. One gathers what one can and then one tries further. --Brant if you (I?) only knew the power of my dark side
  10. 1 point
    Bob was exhibiting signs of Alzheimer's along with his characteristic Aspie obliviousness. I started to wonder toward the end of last year if he'd died, and I took to periodically checking his User Profile to see if he'd signed in. He did sign in on Thanksgiving Day, November 28, and then again on February 6. Ellen
  11. 1 point
    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.
  12. 1 point
    Did I say equal parts dumb and insincere? Three here now! Holy shit this is the best.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 1 point
    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
  16. 1 point
    Arrhenius hypothesized early on (1895) that changes in co2 was a linked to global temperatures. He hypothesized that increasing co2 would warm the planet. His sensitivity parameter was on the high side. Given the resources he had, I think his number is remarkable. He also stated that the industrial revolution would drive co2 levels up. But I think you know this already. So how does this not fit the criteria of your question?
  17. 1 point
    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.
  18. 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?
  19. 1 point
    What is one legitimate question on the table?
  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
    Travis View in conversation with Steven Hassan ... for those not entirely caught up in the con.
  24. 1 point
    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.
  25. 1 point
    Testing an easier way to add in Q-drops. Previously I took screen-captures of Qmap items one by one, then uploaded them, then posted them, then added link attributes pointing to the actual drop on (previously) 8chan.net. Since the 'new' Q server is on an unreliable and often-unreachable channel of the facelifted 8kun, and since Qmap has now added extra editorial material, it's easier for a lazy person like me to simply copy text/HTML snips from Qmap ... This is the experiment. Unfortunately for Q-enthusiasts, there is no way to reach 8kun through Qmap or from these drop-copies below. While 8chan was still functional, Qmap featured embedded links to the particular drop ... but cannot do that now as the 8Kun hosting services are a mess. When you try to get to the original ... 82.9K people are talking about this [Q #3620] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44107570� Publicly known? Think non_public. Access granted. Q [Q #3619] /pf/ was taken down [cleared of content] just prior to platform TERM [specific reason]. NAT SEC [charter] prevents use of 'keys' to establish IDEN via public utility/domain - non_reg. Formation of 'clean' board possible to lock in trip(s) > issues w/ safeguards. Q Fredrick Brennan finds the handwaving and excuses hilarious and inept. The Qmap site has sharing links embedded. This is an example of what a lazy-man's Qdrop to OL could look like, if anyone at all is interested. The headline is from whoever manages the code at Qmap -- "Vindictive Vindman ..." is a editorial gloss. -- if you click the meat of the Tweet above, you get sent to an individual Qmap posting, with even more editorial material added:
  26. 1 point
  27. 1 point
  28. 1 point
    Why did you delete Mike's analysis, Billy? Is that what you are doing now with the old, now proven-to-be-stupid shit that you have reposted? It really doesn't get any more intellectually dishonest than that, Billy. You know, Idiot, that all of it will have to be deleted eventually if you adopt this approach. Wouldn't it be simpler to just stop posting? My best guess is that on the 23rd, Mike Rothschild posted the same content (relying on Twitter cards to populate the tweet with an image and website ID) four times or more times, with minor differences in whether an iteration included an @somebody or differences in whom the tweet-content was addressed to. Either he deleted one of the group or he addressed one of the several to a Twitter account that blocked him shortly thereafter. This can sometimes result in an AI-deletion, from my experience. There may be another explanation that escapes me. I changed nothing in the tweet that appears to have agitated an OL member. This is I think most likely to be the tweet-content at issue: 11:16 AM 12:07 PM 12:42 PM
  29. 1 point
    I gave readers a straightforward explanation -- how to make sure a quote will comprise a tweet from an earlier comment. The Mike Rothschild tweet remains where it was posted. Nothing was deleted. Intelligent readers will most likely accept a parsimonious explanation -- that the attempted quote failed to include the 'white-space' following the embedded tweet -- and thus failed to show. Anyone can check to see if the "missing" tweet is still there ...
  30. 1 point
  31. 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 ...
  32. 1 point
    Some of us have gotten off the perpetual war bus and are happy for getting out of Syria.
  33. 1 point
    It looks like today is Syria Day in the White House ... Grand Supreme Hoopla!
  34. 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.
  35. 1 point
    Freshly published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Elizabeth Loftus, Steven Jay Lynn and Scott O Lilienfeld are joined with several other authors for "The Return of the Repressed: The Persistent and Problematic Claims of Long-Forgotten Trauma.' Full text PDF is unlocked at the Sage site.
  36. 1 point
    Filthy talk nonsense from traitor bag of shit Maxine.
  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
    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 ..."
  39. 1 point
  40. 1 point
    Exclusive: Russia Carried Out A 'Stunning' Breach Of FBI Communications System, Escalating The Spy Game On U.S. Soil
  41. 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
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 1 point
    Did I misspell friction? No, but. 1. Dr. Franklin 2. The Weather Wizard 3. Nicholas Demente 4. GALAXY 5. Destro 6. Colonel Cobb 7. Sir August De Wynter 8. Simon Bar Sinister 9. Crimson Cowl 10. The Weatherman
  45. 1 point
  46. 1 point
    Jonathan, Cannuck epistemology handed down from their leadership? Michael
  47. 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.
  48. 1 point
    I like this woman's poise. Anybody put money on Harris win place or show? Even if the steely grace is a false front, there is a certain gravity in her performance. Will the presidential nickname stick?
  49. 1 point
    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/ )
  50. 1 point
    Capes and Dollar Signs???????? Good grief!