• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blog Comments posted by 9thdoctor

  1. 10 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I saw the video.

    Scott wants to run a discussion with legitimate experts on both sides, no surprises and no yelling.

    Interesting idea.

    Will never happen.

    Too much money and power involved for reason, truth, etc.


    If no representative of the orthodoxy is willing to step forward it would imply they're all in on the scam.  I don't believe that.  Wouldn't it be irresistible for an up-and-coming public figure in the sciences to take down the likes of Richard Lindzen?  The recent debates (posted on this thread) establish that the "don't sanction them by sharing a platform" excuse is no longer operative. 

  2. 2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

    I hereby declare 2019 to be Year of the Arctic in this topic.  A robust argument or review of 'what I know' about Arctic climate would result in a fifty buck donation to OL (in honour of it's continuing on-sufferance hosting of Friends and Foes). 

    Judges for the prize-winning comment are Brant, Jonathan, Ninth and Michael. You four nominate a fifth and Majority Rules.

    I heard a lecture recently by Willie Soon on the topic.  I've had some free time lately.  If I hunt it down, will that suffice?  Or do I have to put it in my own words?  That would take time, and alas, free time is about to become much more scarce for your friendly neighborhood Time Lord. 

  3. 3 hours ago, 9thdoctor said:

    Yeah yeah, they used to say global cooling was going to cause the same problem with the polar vortices.


    1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

    The best part of good faith disagreements is being portrayed as an immoral propagandist from the get-go. 

    I haven't gotten around to portraying that way yet.  You must must be referring to MSK's post, you fraud-enabler you! 

  4. 6 hours ago, Jonathan said:

    Judy the fucking science denier is dumping cold water on the climate doom money grab again:


    No, I didn't call her a denier, I really didn't. I wouldn't do that. I'm a true scientist, not someone who uses intimidation tactics. Huh? My having falsely accused her of science denial is in my written testimony? Hey, look over there! What's that? Yeah, over there. Behind the thing. Hmmm, I thought that I saw something. Anyway. Um, what were we talking about? Oh, yeah, have you seen the Gaga version of A Star is Born?



    I don't know if this has been posted on OL yet:

    Until now it's been beyond rare to see such people share a stage.  On the downside, there's virtually no interaction between the opposing sides. 

    This next one has more actual debate, but is marred by Lawrence Krauss's slimeball tactics and a lack of oratorical skill on the part of two of the members of the opposition.  I wish they'd have ceded their time to Lindzen.


  5. 2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    If Clinton had won, not only would he not say that, he would be doing more crap like it.

    Cheap point: if Clinton had won, there wouldn't have been an special Alabama Senate race for his group to "meddle" with.

    Sounds like this guy would love to use the words "no collusion".  But he can't.

    On a totally different matter, I was just listening to NPR (it's good to know what tunes the devil is playing) and they did a year-end round up of "2018 climate change disasters".  E.g. hurricanes.  Some "scientist" has recently published a paper opposing the till-now standard IPCC line that the cause of extreme weather events can't/shouldn't be ascribed to climate change.  One paper.  So now they're running with it.  Have they covered this Alabama scandal?  Guess.

  6. Looks like this is the same story as this:


    This part has me in stitches:

    Wilson spent 100 hours in three dog parks, where she made note of a whole bunch of times when one dog humped another. When the humping was male-on-male, owners intervened in the overwhelming number of cases. But when the humping was male-on-female, owners were far less likely to stop it. This, the study suggests, might say something about the owners' internalized homophobia and their willingness to overlook female victims of sexual assault.

    • Like 1
  7. 51 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    Further to the eco-justice screech of a wood-chipper ...

    [Argh, gotta leave this at half-ass for the moment]

    Not bad, if a bit familiar ... I am looked at my brainstorm notes and poke them in here via dictation:

    "Half-ass", "not bad", c'mon, throw me a pork chop!

    Under the heading of division of labor, we need someone to concoct the relevant techno-babble.  Volunteers?

  8. 1 hour ago, Jonathan said:

    To the majority, bro! Then we can vote to start applying a final solution to the deniers! They're threatening us. They're endangering our very existence with their denials. It's self defense to put them through the wood chippers. It's eco-justice! Save the earth and save humanity from the deniers!


    It's going to be like the Reichstag fire.  The Senate will vote emergency powers to the Supreme Chancellor. 

    Getting back to our collaborative thrillah, how about we have a CIA analyst, temporarily let's call him Jack Ryan, uncover a plot to use previously unknown technology/techniques to seed bigger badder hurricanes off the west African coast.  Tie in the bad Islamic fundamentalist stuff going on in Mali.  That's pretty close to Western Sahara, which is pretty anarchic right now.  Western Sahara is (I imagine) where the tech would actually be implemented.  Who's ultimately behind it?  Who has the means to develop such advanced technology?  The Russians, naturally.  And how does it get uncovered?  I say let's tie in the Cubans, since they're in the line of fire just as much as anyone else, and they have better ties to the Russians.  Part of the technology ties into the "sonic attacks" that occurred in Havana.  So probably that's where the plot starts, chronologically speaking.  Ryan ends up going to Morocco ("But I'm only an analyst!") to advise on the take-down operation, which is planned to only involve drones, but no, something goes awry and Ryan ends up in a dramatic firefight, with only his good-guy Moroccan (read: Muslim) counterpart there as backup, barely making it out with a few broken ribs, while his hairdo remains intact.  Back in Casablanca he tells his new man Friday that this will be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.  Fade to black. 

  9. 7 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    And off you go making up stuff I don't believe.

    Apparently, I don't think like you do. And I don't think like Bernie or Warren or Marx or any other such demon.

    Recall that the corollary of "Check your premises" was "Watch your implications".  If I'm ascribing to you views you don't hold, consider whether they are implied by the views you have stated.

    I've already pointed out that Amazon (as well as Walmart and McDonalds) are legally forbidden to ask the questions (in the hiring process) that would make it possible for them to not employ people receiving government assistance.  So they're between a rock and hard place already.  And I wouldn't favor it if they did put such a policy in place anyway.  It would require the kind of system that led to the tragedy of Fantine in Les Miserables

    Entry level pay for entry level work is the merit system.  Honest work, honest pay, as you say.  If that's not enough for a given employee's needs, it's not the employer's fault.  And if an employer adds a "social worker" function to its HR department, I don't see that changing the fundamental moral positive that they've provided a job. 

  10. 1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    Making something bearable for an employee so you can get away with sleaze is not the same as inspiring employee productivity and loyalty.

    Sleaze?  What's sleazy about providing entry level pay for entry level work?  And what if, instead of providing info about government programs they only provided info about private charities?  Churches and such?  Would that still point to some nefarious motive?  That they're trying to hold people down, pay them subsistence at a subsistence rate, to keep them in wage slavery? 

    There's nothing Amazon-specific about any of this.  It's standard Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren material.  And Marx before them.

  11. 5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    Where do you get this conclusion?

    Not from anything I wrote. Nor from anything I presume.

    My words are clear.

    So I literally don't understand what you are getting at since I do presume you write in good faith.


    Where do I get the conclusion that having your employer counsel you on how to get government assistance will lead to employees being more productive and loyal?  If these things (food stamps, subsidized housing) make the employee's life more stable, they'll be able to concentrate on work better.  Single mothers  worried about being evicted aren't reliable, good chance they'll miss their next shift. 

  12. 2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    I keep hearing that as if it's supposed to be a good thing.

    If you think it's good and moral, I'm fine with it.

    I think it stinks and is immoral as all hell.

    Bezos has a great side to him (Amazon is a wonderful market invention), but let's say he's got a James Taggart side, too.


    I don't say it's a good thing.  But HR departments aren't run by Objectivists.  They probably put this in the same moral category as smoking cessation programs. 

  13. 4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

    I meant they set up a system of informing employees how to get food stamps and so on if a person complains about the low wages. First they scope out what is available in government handouts and loopholes. Then they format their jobs accordingly, "benevolently" pointing the way to new employees where they can get free money.

    They provide counseling for their lower-income employees so they learn how to take advantage of things like subsidized housing, food stamps, etc.?  And this (presumably) makes them more productive and even loyal?   If so, Amazon didn't invent this.  It's one of the reasons to value a job with a big company like Amazon over waiting tables at a mom and pop diner.

  14. 8 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:


    I believe something else is most likely true.

    Amazon sees an opening in government services (like food stamps), sets in place a way to point to it for the relevant people, then gradually diminishes wages, costs, etc., accordingly.

    Ditto for postage.

    You believe they seek out employees who receive government assistance?  I don't see how one could prove that true or false.  If it were true it would get leaked out eventually (via some internal policy manual becoming public).  If not true, there would never be confirmation of the fact.

    As to postage, at least where I live, Amazon does its own deliveries.  Which tells me that bringing that part of the business in-house is cheaper and/or more reliable than using USPS. 

    • Thanks 1