Jonathan

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    7,216

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    56

 Content Type 

Blog Comments posted by Jonathan

    william.scherk

    Posted

    On 9/24/2020 at 11:29 AM, william.scherk said:

    Christopher Wray: FBI has not seen evidence of national voter fraud effort by mail

    Via NBC:

     

    Why "coordinated national" voter fraud? Is that all that they're looking for? They're okay with voter fraud on a less-than-national level? In Trump's criticisms of mass-mail voting, and his suspicions of Democrats' motivations, did he specify that he thought that it would only happen on a nationally coordinated level?

    • Like 1
    william.scherk

    Posted

    Wahoo! The revival of Greta!

    The leftist media had spent all of that time and effort shoving Greta in our faces, trying to make her influential, but then the damned Covid ended all of that. Solution? Let's have Greta be an expert on Covid! Fuck yeah!

    Which policies will she support? Which punishments? How have we stolen her childhood and her dreams this time? By not wearing ineffective masks early enough? By not obeying soon enough? How daaaare you. You must bend the knee.

     

    https://n-politicss.blogspot.com/2020/05/beyond-parody-cnn-taps-greta-thunberg.html?fbclid=IwAR0ZAZ9qWMGnZA1JEmKqzQotuTW1JYmY7ZGFBwLxLGUdcKqrZFmTSXMYs0c

     

    Beyond parody: CNN taps Greta Thunberg for expert coronavirus panel

     
     
    Greta-Thunberg-puts-the-mental-in-environmentalism-VIVISXN-Fight-the-progressive-left-eco-protestors-leave-trash-everywhere-Greta-T-1200x790.jpg
     

    The brave, hard-hitting journalists over at CNN are hosting a town hall Thursday evening on Coronavirus: Facts and Fears. Our First Amendment warriors are only bringing viewers the best of experts, such as former CDC Director Richard Besser, former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and … teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg.
    william.scherk

    Posted

    Did the manmade global warming climate change crisis emergency cause the coronavirus? I'm starting to hear that it did. The virus briefly distracted lefties from salivating over climate doom, but now they're beginning to remember to keep their focus, and to link anything bad to climate doom. How soon will the idea that the virus was caused by AGW become a "consensus" "settled science" "fact"?

    J

    william.scherk

    Posted

    There's a new girl in the climate doom propaganda game.

    https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/youtuber-campaigns-against-climate-alarmism-drawing-comparisons-to-greta-thunberg/

     

    YouTuber campaigns against ‘climate alarmism,’ drawing comparisons to Greta Thunberg 

    Feb. 23, 2020 at 5:24 pm Updated Feb. 23, 2020 at 7:01 pm 
     
     
    Naomi Seibt poses for a portrait near her home in Munster, Germany. Seibt, 19, uses YouTube to denounce “climate alarmism,” countering the arguments of young climate activist Greta Thunberg. (Photo for The Washington Post by Sebastien Van Malleghem).
     
    “I don’t want to get people to stop believing in man-made climate change, not at all,” Naomi Seibt said. (Photo for The Washington Post by Sebastien Van Malleghem).By 
     and 
    The Washington Post

    For climate skeptics, it’s hard to compete with the youthful appeal of global phenomenon Greta Thunberg. But one U.S. think tank hopes it’s found an answer: the anti-Greta.

    Naomi Seibt is a 19-year-old German who, like Greta, is blond, eloquent and 

    _____

    Do a search for "Naomi vs Greta." What a contrast in the left media's style of coverage of Naomi versus that of Greta. Hilarious.

    J

    william.scherk

    Posted

    Adams's comments on the stock scam are right on. And notice how uninterested Billy and Brad are in our catching them performing the scam. I pointed out Brad's stupid attempt to run two separate hypotheses at the same time, and to treat them as one,  thus eliminating falsifiability. No comment from Brad or Billy about that. You'd think that people who love science as much as Brad and Billy claim to would be eager to address such criticisms, and knock them down immediately. But, no, our little activists think that ignoring the criticism will make it go away. Just keep running the scam.

    william.scherk

    Posted

    !Does Billy still not understand the difference between the words "hypothesize" and "predict"?

    Anyway, it appears that Billy didn't notice or comprehend the final few words in Ellen's comment. The part about scrambling.

    See, we're back to the importance of the questions that I've asked. Details. Ahead of results being observed.

    "Arrehenius didn’t get every detail right, but his argument has proven to be pretty sound."

    Pretty sound. Which details didn't he get right? What were the specific conditions of falsifiability?

    Did he also make contrary predictions? Ones which have been falsified?

    And when did the settled science consensus scientists embrace the idea? Where are their predictions? Details of their criteria?

    I'm asking here about actual predictions, not cherry picked speculations...not, "it might cause more storms but with lesser intensity, or it might cause fewer storms with greater intensity, or neither, or..."

     

     

    william.scherk

    Posted

    21 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

    Your foundation is missing.

    --Brant

    Exactly.

    Brad is sniping. He's trying to force the discussion in a direction where he hopes that he'll be able to find chinks in my armor. He is refusing to identify his foundation -- the definitions, terms and conditions that I'm asking him to identify -- and he's focused on trying to target what he hopes might be my beliefs.

    J

    william.scherk

    Posted

    14 minutes ago, bradschrag said:

    Well, as part of a debate, it is necessary to see where each party doesn't agree. Cause of increasing atmospheric co2 is what?

    I'm not participating in a debate. Where did you get the idea that it was a debate?

    Pay attention: Billy asked what it would take to change our minds on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. I answered. I named my conditions. I simply explained that I'd need to see the details of the scientific method being followed, and I listed specifically what that would mean. Identify and define the single successful hypothesis, the duration of the observations, how that duration was chosen, identify the predictions, the specific conditions of falsifiability, independent repeatability and validation, etc., etc.

    I didn't ask for a debate. I didn't ask for douchebags to try to talk me into opting for a different method of what would convince me.

    But, anyway, regarding your statement above, no -- bullshit -- it is not necessary to see where each party agrees or disagrees. All that is needed is for you to state your case, define it, and support and defend it.

    That's all that my questions represent.

    Answer the questions. Stop trying to push the distraction of setting up a "debate."

    J

     

    william.scherk

    Posted

    Okay, so how to sum up Brad’s return?

    Let’s see. I asked about the details of the successful hypothesis which “settled” the science once and for all regarding anthropogenic climate change.

    In response, first Brad substituted different questions that he liked better, and answered those instead: I had asked what the scientists who had achieved the successful model had identified, prior to making predictions and testing them, what length of time must be observed, and how was that length of time arrived at. Brad decided to pretend that I was asking what HE thought should be the proper duration, and not back prior to the predictions being made, but today, long after they’ve been made, and after reality as been observed in regard to those predictions.

    I asked what percentage of warming mankind is responsible for, and, in response, Brad took two different positions at the same time. He didn’t identify a single hypothesis which represented either of those two positions, or any of the details and conditions of the predictions, durations or falsifiability of either of those positions, but rather just stated that it was what certain unnamed people believed.

    Etc.

    With all of Brad’s maneuvering, I think that the potency of my questions is clear, and it’s also clear why Brad, and Billy, are so opposed to answering them.

    Distractions. Substituting their own distortions of my questions rather than answering mine. Pretending. Lying. Getting caught doing exactly what I’ve said they would do, and illustrating the need for my insistence on answering the questions that the scientific method demands.

    QED.

    J

    william.scherk

    Posted

    5 hours ago, merjet said:

    Heh. I get it fine. You either can't or don't want to explain:
    - why Trump declared that the U.S. will join the pledge to plant a trillion trees that intake carbon dioxide, and
    - why Trump signed legislation to hand out much bigger subsidies to companies for sequestering carbon dioxide, increasing one subsidy from $10 per ton to $35 per ton and another subsidy from $20 per ton to $50 per ton.

    Maybe Trump succumbed to little Greta at Davos.  🙂

    The video of Scott Adams you posted was mostly a big waste of time. The part you alleged as relevant turned out to be a smoke screen. I’m not interested in your word games or your ploys to dodge my question. 

    Yeah, Orange Man and MSK bad.

    Gramps, do you have any insights as to why Trump has changed his position? Or is it just Gotcha-MSK?

    J