• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonathan

  1. It gets even worse when they have a government-paid position to nurture and protect. J
  2. Yup. Actions versus words. Obama knows that the rising seas doom is total bullshit. He doesn't believe it. J
  3. Billy? No? No opinion on the methodology used in the 97% lie? No curiosity about it? No comment? J
  4. What's especially disturbing to me about the alleged professionals diagnosing Trump (and his followers) is that their descriptions of their alleged observations don't match reality. They speak of constant "tantrums," "meltdowns," "tirades," and such, to describe Trump's calm explanations of his disagreement with his political opponents. They infer the worst possible motives in any statement that he makes, assign those motives to him despite evidence to the contrary, and then judge his mental health based on nothing but those hostile inferences and false assignations. These are people who
  5. It is interesting to discover that not buying into the climate doom narrative, and not wanting to punish the rich, are examples of craziness. Heh. What is wrong with you? We're going to stick it to those who have more than we do, and you're not going to support us and help us take what we want? You must be mentally ill!
  6. Using psychiatry as a political weapon isn't new, but it's still very disturbing to me whenever I see it. It's a violation of "The Goldwater Rule," which was adopted by the APA in response to leftist activists back in the 60s misusing psychiatry to smear Barry Goldwater. The APA's position is that psychiatrists should not offer opinions or diagnoses of the mental health of public figures whom they have not examined and properly evaluated in person, and that offering such opinions is the misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical. Jan 09, 2018 APA Calls for End
  7. Yeah, I see behavior that suggests scientific stupidity as well as religiousness. The stubbornness, the refusal to answer questions and to address specific points, while lecturing everyone about civil discussion and not Othering the Others, smacks of close-minded religion.
  8. Hi Billy. Welcome back. Have you had an opportunity to review my post about the group that is criticizing the false 97% claim? It's a pretty short and easy to understand argument. Do you grasp it? Do you agree that they have a valid point? NASA pushed this falsehood, as have many other organizations. It's methodology is ridiculously flawed, yet NASA bought into it and repeated it. Slop. Carelessness. Or worse. Is it at all disconcerting to you that this garbage made it past the brightest scientists? Is this level of scientific competence acceptable to you, especially from a
  9. More actions that don't match words. Do as I say, nor as I do. Good for me, but not for thee. Internet Wrecks Obamas Over $15 Million Martha’s Vineyard Estate SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images By AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO @AMANDAPRESTO August 24, 2019 210.1k views The man who spent eight years lecturing Americans about the evils of wealth and economic inequality, and fear mongered about global warming and climate change is reportedly set to buy a nearly $15 million beachfront Martha's Vineyard
  10. It could be some of both. At various points, I've gotten the vibe that Billy wasn't grasping what I was asking, and then I would try to put it into different words in order ro try to communicate more clearly, but at other points, I got the vibe that he grasped what I was asking but wanted to bury it, or "blank it out," as Auntie Ayn used to say. This is a old post where I was trying very hard to communicate to Billy during a point where I was getting the vibe that he wasn't grasping what I was asking, but might be open to trying to grasp it: Billy did not seem to understand the di
  11. Fun idea. Before Trump leaves office, for just one day, President Trump needs to identify as a woman, Donna Trump, for one day. There are only two possible consequences of this, either the Left will have to admit the absurdity of gender ideology and transgenderism, or the Left will have to celebrate Donald Trump as the first woman president. Beat Hillary to it. Beat Amy Klobuchar, beat Kamala Harris, beat Liz Warren. Donna Trump, that's what we'll call him for that one day. Donna Trump will become the first woman president. If he remains married to Melania, he will be the
  12. Billy asked about Tyndall because he seems to have thought that we're all science deniers, and therefore would deny Tyndall's work? Perhaps I'm wrong, but that seems to have been Billy's thought process. Well, I've answered the test. And I had also posted my own little test. Billy didn't address it. Here it is again: So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement. I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out. Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for p
  13. Thanks MSK. That does indeed resemble the mindset that I run into when I ask to see the science. J
  14. Actually, when asked for the science, Billy's response is not that "we don't no need stinkin' science," but that I'm denying the science by asking him to present it. My asking seems to make him feel that I'm unwilling to change whatever view he imagines that I hold. Scroll up and re-read the different ways that I asked my questions, and then repeated them again and again. I didn't copy and paste all of the times that I asked. And we're still getting nowhere. Are my questions invalid? Are they, tee hee hee, ridiculous? If so, why? Someone explain, please.
  15. I ran through Billy's original version of this thread, and copy and pasted several of the times that I asked my questions: ----- Um, Billy, don't interpret or spin my words. Read them. Understand them. I'm saying exactly what I mean. As I wrote: "I ask to be able to review the science and to evaluate the success or failure of its predictions. Give me all of the information. What was the hypothesis, precisely what predictions were made, when were they made, what potential results were identified ahead of time as falsifying or invalidating the hypothesis, what were the start and
  16. Billy has closed further comments on his "Placeholder for GW/CC 'How I got here’” climate doom thread, and just when I thought that he might finally be interested in actual discussion. So, I’m starting this thread to answer some of the responses that he gave in his last post — and thanks, Billy, for those responses, instead of your typical non-responsiveness. Billy replied to me: My understanding is that Tyndall's testing of his hypotheses were well-defined and carefully controlled, and his results were and are repeatable. I’ve been asking you to provide th
  17. What happened to Denmark? Trump made a suggestion. Mette Frederiksen responded publicly with snarky anger, snooty superiority, and delved into imagining the evil of unwashed monster parvenu Trump's motivations. Trump described her response as "nasty." Rather understated, I'd say. Then he postponed his visit to Denmark. So, what's the tee hee hee that I'm missing? Denmark is somehow now a massive pile of bloody victims in this? Oh, my Lord Jesus, look what happened to Denmark! J
  18. So, below I offer my first 'finding' for our platform on the foundation on the boulevard of agreement. I've posted this previously here on OL, back when it first came out. Billy, you had asked if there is an agreed-upon set of 'findings,' even for people who may disagree mightily on entailments. Do you agree that the article below offers an argument that is devastating to the falsehood that it refutes? Do you agree that the article is correct that the method used to arrive at the 97% conclusion is fatally flawed? Libertarian Group Demands NASA Remove False '97 Percent
  19. We need to find pathways that indicate possible corridors that might lead toward avenues which will take us to the boulevard of agreement. Let’s see if we can find a foundation near that boulevard on which to establish a platform where we can place our gathered findings to discover if we all agree that they are indeed findings. But first, let’s make more hoops. We need many more hoops to jump through. Place them between us and the questions that Jonathan has asked. Hoops of every size and color. Line them on the pathways, corridors, and avenues. Hoops and more hoops, everywhere! Then let’s hyp
  20. Hello? Billy? Are you pouting? You really, really badly want to pontificate on John Tyndall, but your glorious parade was rained upon? I'm sorry, pumpkin. So, let's have your little Tyndall party!!! Yay!!! Happy Tyndall Day, Billy! Tell us all about him! Did he make any predictions about global warming? Did those predictions come true in reality? Did he take a position on man-made climate change, hypothesize that man's activities would result in certain specific temperature increases, and then successfully predict future outcomes in reality? I know, I know. P
  21. I think Trump's probably been reading too much Clive Cussler, and is hoping to find ancient shipwrecks there. J
  22. The questions of mine that you’ve been dodging address all of that, Billy. Drop the professor pose and the discussion leader/moderator ploy. You don’t want a discussion. You can’t handle a discussion. Buh, buh, but, perhaps we can find an avenue forward in which Billy instructs us what to do and how to think, and we can find common ground agreement in avoiding those icky questions that Jonathan asked and that Billy can’t answer? Billy, what is it about my questions that makes you think that we need instruction in climatological superstructure, radiative physics, etc.? I’ve simply asked yo
  24. And? When do we get the part where my questions are answered? How about you just skip ahead to that part? Heh. No? Still not able to answer the questions, so you're back to the game of posing as professor who is going to instruct the rubes about everything except the questions they've asked? Rather pathetic, Billy. J