• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. Thank you. And right back at you. J
  2. So, since not one single work of alleged art has ever been objectively shown to have complied with Rand's definition and criteria, all alleged works of art, including Rand's, are "obscurantist or self-indulgent." Try to remember what we've discussed several times, Tony: I've tested you and other Objectivists and your ability to identify artists' meanings in representational realist paintings. There was nothing obscure or self-indulgent about the works of art. In fact, they were quite ordinary and they easily fell within the representational tradition that you demand. Anyway, Tony, I already know that you have nothing to offer to this thread. Actually, you have less than nothing. My post wasn't addressed to you, or meant to encourage your blather. It was actually an invitation to others to practice actual objectivity and rationality, and to recognize the bluff and nonsense of the Objectivist Esthetics.
  3. It's been more than a decade now since Pigero tried to demonstrate the "objective" superiority of his tastes in music. When his lame little piece was criticized, and ridiculed, he had claimed that it was just a skeleton upon which he would be applying serious scholarly flesh. Alas, after these ten-plus years, no flesh has been added. Heres my stroll down memory lane (this content was also cross-posted to Solopassion several times, but Pigero dodged and evaded it, and never addressed any of the substance): Damn, what an ass-kicking I dished out! J
  4. Bump: C'mon, O-vish necromancers, give it a jolt. J
  5. Oh noes! Muh, muh consensus! Muh 97%! Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent Consensus' Global Warming Claim BY TYLER O'NEIL JULY 10, 2019 CHAT 302 COMMENTS (Shutterstock) On Tuesday, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) sent NASA a formal complaint, asking the agency to withdraw the false claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are the primary cause of global warming and climate change. The 2013 study purporting to demonstrate that number was fatally flawed and proved no such thing. "The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false," CEI attorney Devin Watkins said in a statement. "That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public." According to the CEI complaint, NASA's decision to repeat the false claim violated the Information Quality Act (IQA). Specifically, NASA claimed that "[n]inety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." The claim appears on the NASA website on the page "Climate Change: How Do We Know?" The claim traces back to a study led by John Cook entitled "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature" and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters in 2013. The study is fundamentally dishonest, as the CEI complaint explains. The study analyzed all published peer-reviewed academic research papers from 1991 to 2011 that use the terms "global warming" or "global climate change." The study placed the papers into seven categories: explicit endorsement with quantification, saying humans are responsible for 50+ percent of climate change; explicit endorsement without quantification; implicit endorsement; no position or uncertain; implicit rejection; explicit rejection with qualification; and explicit rejection without qualification. The study found: 64 papers had explicitly endorsed anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with quantification (attributing at least half of climate change to humans); 922 papers had explicitly endorsed AGW without quantifying how much humans contribute; 2,910 papers had implicitly endorsed AGW; 7,930 papers did not state a position and 40 papers were uncertain; 54 papers implicitly rejected AGW by affirming the possibility that natural causes explain climate change; 15 papers explicitly rejected AGW without qualification; and 9 papers explicitly rejected AGW with quantification, saying human contributions to global warming are negligible. So how did Cook and his team come up with the 97 percent number? They added up the first three categories (3,896 papers), compared them to the last three categories (78 papers) and the papers expressing uncertainty (40 papers), and completely ignored the nearly 8,000 papers that did not state a position. Of the papers Cook's team characterized as stating a position, 97 percent (3,896 of the 4,014 papers) favored the idea of man-made global warming. See the problem? The study completely discounted the majority of the papers it analyzed (66.4 percent — 7,930 of the 11,944 papers analyzed). With those papers included, only 32.6 percent of the papers explicitly or implicitly endorsed AGW (3,896 of 11,944 papers). But it gets worse. Many of the scientists who wrote the original papers Cooks' team analyzed complained that this study mischaracterized their research. The survey "included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral," complained Dr. Richard Tol, professor of the economics of climate change at Vrije Universiteit. He argued that of the 112 omitted papers, only 1 strongly endorses man-made global warming. "That is not an accurate representation of my paper," wrote geography Ph.D. Craig Idso. "Nope ... it is not an accurate representation," Nir Shaviv, associate professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, wrote. Ph.D. physicist Nicola Scafetta complained that "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AAGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission." Cook's team categorized his paper as one that "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%." Scafetta countered, "What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun." Even including Scafetta's incorrectly categorized study, Cook's team only found 64 papers that explicitly endorsed man-made global warming and attributed more than 50 percent of it to human activity. That represents a minuscule 0.5 percent of the 11,944 papers. Even excluding the 66.4 percent of the papers that did not take a position, the 50 percent plus approach only accounts for 1.6 percent of all papers in the Cook study. The study — and the 97 percent figure that depends on it — is fatally flawed, and NASA has 120 days to respond to the CEI complaint. It is far past time people reject this false claim.
  6. I love seeing Merlin's "logic." Pure belligerence and irrationality. He packs so many fallacies into one paragraph! And he does it effortlessly. J
  7. What I'm seeing in my social media bubble is the left trying very hard to push the Narrative that Trump has ties to Epstein and is therefore likely a pedo, and it's just a matter of time before Trump is convicted and impeached and whatever. At the same time, rumors of Clinton's relationship with Epstein are just meh, then shouted down, and answered with 23 more memes portraying Trump as a pedo.
  8. Hey Darrell, I was curious if you've seen Merlin's statement about you over on a different thread: Fascinating, no? J
  9. Here's the task that you were challenged with, and which you've been cognitively incapable of answering: Prove it. Demonstrate that you know how to account for the perspective in the images. Show us the geometry. Plot it out, and show your work. No more unsupported assertions. Heh. Um, here's a screen capture of the entire apparatus: Do you see the vertical red rectangles that I've placed on the left and right sides of the image? They are both the same size. Notice that the one on the left is the same height as the wooden support next to it? See that? And on the other side, the wooden support appears to be shorter. Why is that?!!! Hmmm? Can you figure it out, genius? Is the post on the right really shorter than the one on the left? If so, do the strings go downhill? When the wheel reaches the right side, do the lines end up lower than the circles to which they are currently tangential? No? They don't? So, what could explain the wooden support on the right appearing to be about 20% smaller than it actually is? OMG, Merlin, look at this giant dog!!!  His shoulders come up to the deck of the Golden Gate bridge! He's way taller than the north tower of the bridge, but just shorter than the south tower. Dang, it's a new paradox. How is it that the bridge deck is level when the north tower is so much smaller than the south tower? Is the giant dog a part of the solution?  Prove that the wheel's circumference is "20% longer than the distance along the wires." I've proven otherwise. If you're still stubborn enough to disagree, then demonstrate, first, that you are capable of grasping the geometry of my proof, and, second that my geometry is incorrect. J
  10. Indeed you are. After all this time, you still can't grasp the geometry of the image.
  11. I don't recall your having challenged me with any geometry or calculus problems that I haven't solved. I do, however, recall my having presented projective geometry ( in response to one of your challenges, and then immediately giving you a challenge which remains unanswered. Still working on it? No? Too hard? Gave up? Yeah. J
  12. Oh no!!! Auntie Kamhi is dismayed, disturbed and distraught about something! And still arguing from the irrational and subjectivist position that her own personal cognitive and aesthetic limitations MUST be the universal limits of all of mankind -- still practicing nothing but the fallacy of Argument From Personal Incredulity. Dismaying Exhibition of De Waal Installations at the Frick Edmund de Waal is the justly acclaimed British author of The Hare with Amber Eyes, a superb history/memoir of the Ephrussi banking family, of which he is a scion. He is also the creator of an unprecedented temporary exhibition now at the Frick Collection in New York City. Entitled Elective Affinities, it is the first exhibition of work by a living artist in the museum’s main galleries. Lamentably, it presents a dismaying contrast with the Frick’s permanent collection—as well as with his admirable book. It also exemplifies much of what is wrong with the contemporary artworld...
  13. Yeah, but you're citing Wikipedia. We've seen what you do to Wikipedia. Just sayin. J
  14. That's much gentler than calling someone whom one hasn't read "the most evil man in mankind's history."
  15. Yeah. Hubris. Celebrity. Bluff. All of which has hindered the appreciation of her good ideas. And her acolytes copy her mistakes, adding fuel to the pyre.
  16. By saying "dropping her name," I meant as in "name-dropping," as in using her name, referring to her, citing her. I meant that I generally don't bring her up, because mentioning her name only bogs the conversation down. It ends up focusing on the dumbest things that she said, and characterizes her as being limited to and equally those dumbest things. It opens a can of shit which becomes a massive waste-of-time distraction. As was Kant, and several other people whom she mischaracterized and upon whom she stupidly shat. I said can of shit, not can of worms. J
  17. What I meant was that Rand's reputation or rating as a serious thinker has it coming. She did it to herself. And, sure, you could say that we have it coming. ObjectiKarma. Those of us who value the things she got right -- enough to defend her -- will have her stupid shit thrown back in our faces. She made the task of defending her views hard enough that I think it's generally easier to avoid even mentioning her name, and to just stick to discussing ideas. Dropping her name opens up a whole a can of shit that's not usually worth the effort to sort through.
  18. Of course it’s a mischaracterization. But, then again, Rand has it coming with all of the mischaracterizing that she did of others.
  19. Ford is a psychologist, and knows stuff about the brain, and she mentioned some chemicals, technical terms and theories, and therefore she could not possibly have been mistaken, misremembering, or lying about Kavanaugh. She seems to really hate Ted Cruz, and was "supporting" Beto out of spite for Cruz. I haven't seen why she has these feelings. Lots and lots of anger. She seems to have found an outlet for some of it in making customer complaints to companies. She should think about getting a "I want to speak to your manager" haircut. J