Search the Community

Showing results for 'climate doom' in content posted by Jonathan.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Objectivist Living Corner Office
    • Purpose of Objectivist Living and Legal Stuff (please read)
    • Announcements
    • Tech Support / IPB Help Desk
    • Links
    • Web Stuff and Other Tech Issues (not OL specific)
  • Objectivist Philosophy
    • About Objectivism
    • 1 - Metaphysics
    • 2 - Epistemology
    • 3 - Ethics
    • 4 - Politics
    • 5 - Aesthetics
  • Objectivist Living
    • Meet and Greet
    • Objectivist Living Room
    • Art Gallery
    • Articles
    • Creative Writing
    • Writing Techniques
    • Persuasion Techniques
    • Psychology
    • Parenting
    • Humor - OL LOLOLOLOL
    • The Library
    • Quotes
    • Romance Room
    • Movies and Entertainment
    • Music
    • News and Interesting Articles
    • Events and Happenings
    • Tips for Everyday Living
    • Inky's Room
    • The Kitchen
    • Science & Mathematics
    • Sports and Recreation
    • Stumping in the Backyard
    • Objectivist Living Room Copy
  • Objectivist Living Den
    • The Objectivist Living Den
    • Offers from OL Members
    • The Culture of Reason Center Corner
    • The Objectivist Living Boutique
  • Corners of Insight
    • Barbara Branden Corner
    • Nathaniel Branden Corner
    • Ed Hudgins Corner
    • David Kelley Corner
    • Chris Sciabarra Corner
    • George H. Smith Corner
    • Corners of Further Insight
    • TAS Corner
    • ARI Corner
  • Outer Limits
    • Rants
    • For The Children...
    • The Horror File Cabinet
    • Conservative News
    • Chewing on Ideas
    • Addiction
    • Objectivism in Dark Places
    • Mideast
    • PARC
    • The Garbage Pile

Calendars

  • Objectivist Living Community Calendar
  • Self-Esteem Every Day

Blogs

  • Kat's Blog
  • wanderlustig
  • Hussein El-Gohary's Blog
  • CLASSical Liberalism
  • Ted Keer' Blog
  • RaviKissoon's Blog
  • hbar24's Blog
  • brucemajors' Blog
  • Ross Barlow's Blog
  • James Heaps-Nelson's Blog
  • Matus1976's Blog
  • X
  • Tee-Jay's Blog
  • Jeff Kremer's Blog
  • Mark Weiss' Blog
  • Etisoppa's Blog
  • Friends and Foes
  • neale's Blog
  • Better Living Thru Blogging!
  • Chris Grieb's Blog
  • Gay TOC
  • Sandra Rice's Blog
  • novus-vir's Blog
  • Neil Parille's Blog
  • Jody Gomez's Blog
  • George Donnelly
  • plnchannel
  • F L Light's Blog
  • Donovan A's Blog
  • Julian's Writings
  • Aspberger's World
  • The Naturalist
  • Broader than Measurement Omission
  • The Melinda's Blog
  • Benevolist Ponderings
  • Shane's Blog
  • On Creative Writing (Chrys Jordan)
  • Think's Blog
  • Kate Herrick's Blog
  • Rich Engle's Blog
  • thelema's Blog
  • cyber bullying
  • Shane's Blog
  • x
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • Mary Lee Harsha's Blog
  • George H. Smith's Blog
  • Jim Henderson's Blog
  • Mike Hansen's Blog
  • Bruce's Blogations
  • Prometheus Fire
  • equality72521's Blog
  • Sum Ergo Cogitabo's Blog
  • Robert Bumbalough's Blog
  • Troll reads Atlas
  • dustt's Blog
  • dustt's Blog
  • Closed
  • Tim Hopkins' Blog
  • Objectivism 401
  • PDS' Blog
  • PDS' Blog
  • Rich Engle's Beyond Even Bat Country
  • Negative Meat Popsicle's Blog
  • politics and education
  • J.S. McGowan's Blog
  • Aeternitas
  • Shrinkiatrist
  • AnarchObjectivist
  • Brant Gaede's Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests


Full Name


Description


Articles


Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.

  1. OMG, look at this! A giant bee that was extinct became unextinct because of man-made climate change! And the climate scientists predicted it years ago! The world's largest bee is a big, black wasp-like insect as long as an adult's thumb, and it was extinct — or so scientists thought. The massive bee was rediscovered alive in Indonesia last month, decades after it was last seen. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/wallaces-giant-bee-megachile-pluto-once-thought-extinct-has-been-discovered-alive-on-island-in-indonesia/ It was settled science that it was extinct -- more than 97% consensus -- but now it's been seen alive again, so that can only mean that it somehow became unextinct (because the consensus can't be wrong), and the only way that that could happen would be through the power of man-made climate change, which is caused by, and can cause, anything and everything. Scientists predicted that weird, unexpected and extreme stuff would happen because of man-made climate change, and this is definitely weird, unexpected, and extreme, so, see? It's proof. We're definitely going in the direction of finding the road that leads to the path that leads to arguments and questions that lead to the science! Now if we can only sharpen our persuasion techniques! J
  2. I thought that it might be time again to share one of my favorite things about Climate Doom and the alleged consensus. Remeber this? It's what got the whole 97% thing started: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Notice that the papers were not read, but only the abstracts were considered. And what isn't noted in the above is that even the abstracts weren't actually read, but were only electronically scanned for predetermined words and phrases which might indicate agreement with or rejection of man-blamed climate change. So, they immediately eliminated from consideration two-thirds of the papers due to their not expressing an opinion. And why? Who decided that not expressing an opinion is not a valid position? One must have a strong opinion pro or con, or else one is not counted? Heh. And it gets worse. The deeper you look into it, the more pathetic these people's notions of science is in regard to the alleged consensus. Anyway, Billy, I'm curious if you find anything to criticize in their methodology. Is it what you would call good science? J
  3. 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!
  4. 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. Predictions are icky. But they're a part of grownup science, Billy. You can't have your exciting doom and your controlling other people if you don't have successful predictions first. Okay, so can we get past Tyndall now? What's next? Let's pick up the pace, okay? What's the next very important non-answer to my questions that we need to explore in-depth? J
  5. Climate change expert Aaron Doering charged with choking his fiancée A well-known climate change expert and professor at the University of Minnesota choked and brutally assaulted his fiancée, who told cops she fears he will kill her, according to a criminal complaint... “Aaron has received millions of dollars in grants; has published more than 80 journal articles, books, book chapters, and conference proceedings; and is the coauthor of two books, The New Landscape of Mobile Learning: Redesigning Education in an App-based World and Integrating Educational Technology into Teaching...” https://nypost.com/2018/12/28/climate-change-expert-aaron-doering-charged-with-choking-his-fiance/ ---- I wonder what triggered it. Did she express some minor skepticism of or disagreement with his settled science? Disrespected his authoritay? Millions in grants. And he's just one of the thousands of climate douches on the dole. J
  6. Oh, so 'show us the work' is important now? Cool. Oh, wait, but it's only important regarding this single issue, and not, say, anthropogenic climate change, right? Got it. J
  7. I like to listen to the activist fake news program called The Daily on NPR. It's a New York Times product. It presents one side, sneers at the other, includes ominous music and lots of pregnant pauses. The dramatic whispery host "I'm...Mic...heal.........Bar...bar...o........Today on......The.....Dai....ly..........." usually temporarily forgets and slips out of the whispery drama once or twice per episode. He's very, very important. He should be in charge of everything. You should be made to ask him permission for stuff. Anyhoo, last night's episode was a study in political activism pretending to be journalism: When we almost stopped climate change. One side was presented. Outrageous, unsupported claims were made. Countering arguments were not heard, but were caricatured, straw-manned, mocked and vilified -- the very idea of questioning and doubting activist scientists' assertions, even way back in the 80s before climate predictions had had their chance to fail, was painted as evil, and a threat to the very existence of mankind -- and therefore the mindset is that doubt is not to be given a voice, it is not to be tolerated or considered, but needs to be silenced, sued, convicted and punished. Being skeptical and critical was presented as opposing science. There is no place in science for doubt. Scientists are to be trusted, including when making proposals outside of their areas of expertise, such as economics, politics, public policies and their consequences, etc. Human-caused, cataclysmic global warming climate change existential fucking nightmare doom was presented as having been established as factually certain, settled science as far back as 1980. Natural disasters were presented as proof of predicted consequences, while all of the failed predictions were omitted from the program. (When one's group predicts every possible outcome -- i.e. storm activity will increase, storm activity will decrease, storm activity will stay the same -- it's easy to then cite the one prediction that was correct while leaving out any mention of the contradicting predictions of the same event that were wrong, which is why falsifiability is so important to science, and why it's not to be discarded just because activists know that the trick of unfalsifiability will dupe a lot of people). No evidence was presented to support the assertion that global warming is a threat to our existence. It just fucking is, so shut the fuck up. No weighing of the pros versus cons of warmer temperature was considered. One solution was proposed to address the alleged threat to all of our lives. To oppose that solution is to be an evil denier who is harming his fellow man. You're trying to get us all killed, so you need to be snuffed. Give the program a listen. There's much more to it than I've mentioed above. It really is a fascinating study in all of the available methods of shitbaggery. J
  8. And climate doom alarm mongers say exactly the same thing when weather doesn't support their doomsaying. When they feel that they can take advantage of weather as a scare tactic, they conveniently forget how caustically they scolded others on the distinction between weather and climate.
  9. Billy, I'm curious if you've ever critically investigated weather instrument shelters. Do you feel that you have a handle on that subject? I find it interesting that some scientists, who believe in The Doom and preach it, have expressed the opinion that the methods that were primarily used ten years ago are now considered unreliable, and even junk. Stone Age crap. Yet the predictions of The Doom from back then are still revered. We should have listened to the warnings! And, even though the screen system used prior to that were even worse, trust us, it was settled science as far back as the seventies, which had pre-Stone Age sub-crap. Do you have a take on the issue? Thoughts or feelings about homogenisation of stations? And I'm asking what you think, not what Scott Adams or some twitter alarmist whom you like thinks. Not looking for a document dump, but a genuine response. J
  10. Judy the fucking science denier is dumping cold water on the climate doom money grab again: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/27/judith-curry-sea-level-study-disputes-climate-disa/?fbclid=IwAR13JHSjwAnjj3SlNjzKx8JhVp0oTEe3FBlr4X68_vGI6fwQQq6YS7YuSMw 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? Heh. J
  11. "If we don't take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon." https://www.npr.org/2018/12/03/672893695/david-attenborough-warns-of-collapse-of-civilizations-at-u-n-climate-meeting We need to control and punish people. The little people. In fact, it may not be enough to just punish them. We need serious sacrifices. Human sacrifices. Blood. That's the only thing that will stop Climate Doom. We've backed off of the scare tactics and ridiculous predictions for a while, so now it's time to bring them back. Most people have forgotten by now how silly our previous doomsaying was, so now it'll be fresh again and more effective, especially if we can get useful idiot celebrities to go along with it, and extra-especially if we can get celebrities with a veneer of an illusion of gravitas, like non-scientist Sir David F. Attenborough! He was knighted by the queen. Were you knighted by the queen? No? Then shut the fuck up. It's settled science. We have to kill some people, lots of them, and enjoy doing it, in order to save existence. J
  12. Man-made climate change dunnit, it's settled science, 97% of climate scientists agree, you need to be punished, here's some tasty steamed octopus... Venice ‘on its knees’ after second-worst flood ever recorded By COLLEEN BARRY and LUCA BRUNO9 minutes ago VENICE, Italy (AP) — The worst flooding in Venice in more than 50 years prompted calls Wednesday to better protect the historic city from rising sea levels as officials calculated hundreds of millions of euros in damage... https://apnews.com/2e212a874a064ce4af63dc3ffda0258e
  13. Oh noes! Muh, muh climate doom! Muh settled science! Muh alarm! Muh, muh, muh panic! https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/14/widely-reported-ocean-warming-study-is-w Widely Reported Alarming Ocean Warming Study Is Wrong Skeptic of catastrophic climate change projections is right about significant errors in alarming new study...
  14. The left is using the same tactic in regard to the Khashoggi issue that they use for climate doom. Unfalsifiability. Just like all possible outcomes prove catastrophic manmade climate change, all potential choices of courses of action in response to the Khashoggi killing are wrong. Our Billy is even participating. It's the reason he won't answer questions about the proper course of action. He and the rest of the left wish to reserve The ability to condemn, no matter what.
  15. Check out the article below. While reading it, do any critical questions come to mind? Is this science? Is it settled? https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-02/ru-ccs022219.php PUBLIC RELEASE: 28-FEB-2019 Climate change shrinks many fisheries globally, Rutgers-led study finds Researchers find losses as high as 35 percent in some regions RUTGERS UNIVERSITY SHARE PRINT E-MAIL IMAGE: BLACK SEA BASS ARE ONE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE "WINNERS " THAT HAVE SEEN THEIR PRODUCTIVITY INCREASE WITH WARMING OCEAN TEMPERATURES. view more CREDIT: ORION WELDON Climate change has taken a toll on many of the world's fisheries, and overfishing has magnified the problem, according to a Rutgers-led study in the journal Science today. ---
  16. For the sake of tidiness, I'm reposting this post here: In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way: What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences? Here are the questions: How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified? Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed? Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes? More to come. But, please, start with the above. J
  17. Hey, Billy, did you watch any of the DoomFest on CNN? Population control and lists upon lists of punishments. Yay! Fun stuff. Plus Uncle Joe got a bloody eye. Biden's eye fills with blood during CNN climate town hall by Julio Rosas & Joseph Simonson | September 04, 2019 08:39 PM Former Vice President Joe Biden appeared to have a blood vessel burst in his left eye while participating in CNN's town hall on climate change. A broken blood vessel in the eye, also known as a subconjuctival hemorrhage, can be caused by several things, including high blood pressure, bleeding disorders, blood thinners, or even excessive straining. Biden, 76, has long been plagued by health issues. In 1988, he suffered an aneurysm that burst and required him to undergo emergency surgery. The then-senator was so close to death that a Catholic priest began preparing to administer the sacrament of last rites. Months later, surgeons clipped a second aneurysm before it burst. Biden then took a seven-month leave from the Senate following the surgery. Describing the operation, he once said, “They literally had to take the top of my head off.” Jill Biden said in her recently released autobiography Where the Light Enters that, at the time, she feared her husband would never be the same. "Our doctor told us there was a 50-50 chance Joe wouldn't survive surgery," she wrote. "He also said that it was even more likely that Joe would have permanent brain damage if he survived. And if any part of his brain would be adversely affected, it would be the area that governed speech." Doctors removed a benign polyp during a colonoscopy in 1996. In 2003, Biden had his gallbladder removed. He suffers from asthma and allergies and takes a prescription drug to lower his cholesterol. He has also taken medication for an enlarged prostate. Biden hasn’t disclosed his medical history since 2008, when doctors found he had an irregular heartbeat. Biden has also raised eyebrows for the increasing number of verbal blunders he has made so far on the 2020 campaign trail, the schedule of which has been markedly lighter than his main rivals. Those close to Biden nevertheless maintain that he is "a picture of health," according to a former aide who spoke to the Washington Examiner in April. Were he to win the 2020 presidential election, he would be the oldest president ever to be inaugurated.
  18. Tasty steamed humans in the near future? It's settled science. It's what we need to do in order to Save The Planet™. Isn't it exciting, Billy? First it will be voluntary, but, eventually, the virtuous wokescolds will have to decide who will be sacrificed for the greater good. SWEDISH BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST SUGGESTS EATING HUMANS TO ‘SAVE THE PLANET’ The “food of the future” may be dead bodies. Paul Joseph Watson | Infowars.com - SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 A Swedish behavioral scientist has suggested that it may be necessary to turn to cannibalism and start eating humans in order to save the planet. Appearing on Swedish television to talk about an event based around the “food of the future,” Magnus Söderlund said he would be holding seminars on the necessity of consuming human flesh in order to stop climate change. Environmentalists blame the meat and farming industry for a large part of what they claim is the warming of the earth.According to Söderlund, a potential fix would be the Soylent Green-solution of eating dead bodies instead. He told the host of the show that one of the biggest obstacles to the proposal would be the taboo nature of corpses and the fact that many would see it as defiling the deceased. Söderlund also acknowledged that people are “slightly conservative” when it comes to eating things they are not accustomed to, such as cadavers. The discussion took place accompanied by a graphic of human hands on the end of forks. Lovely. Another proposal to save the earth which has been promoted by numerous mass media outlets and environmentalists is only somewhat less disgusting – eating bugs. No doubt Greta Thunberg and Prince Harry will be first in line for when cockroaches and human flesh is being dished out at the next international climate summit.
  19. The deniers deserve to have their property destroyed. We don't have time to wait for the fucking deniers to agree with us. We're reaching the end. Running out of clock. Pretty soon, we're going to have to take serious measures, like butchering the fucking deniers. We have the right to do it. The deniers are putting our lives at risk. They're trying to get us all killed. So it's self defense for us to disembowel them. It's virtuous. Destroy! Kill! Former Canadian Prime Minister: I Hope Deadly Hurricane Destroys Trump’s Home Photo by Don Emmert/AFP/Getty Images By HANK BERRIEN August 30, 2019 On Thursday, the only woman to ever serve as the prime minister of Canada issued a horrifying tweet in which she stated she wanted the deadly hurricane Dorian to strike President Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago, Florida. In response to a tweet from a scientist warning that Dorian was a major hurricane threat to the East Coast this weekend and that Florida was in the hurricane’s crosshairs, Kim Campbell tweeted, "I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago!" I’m rooting for a direct hit on Mar a Lago! https://t.co/cA14KQvjpC — Kim Campbell (@AKimCampbell) August 28, 2019 Fox News reported on Thursday, "The strengthening storm churned over the warm, open waters of the Atlantic on Thursday, upgrading to Category 2 strength late in the day, with maximum sustained winds of 105 mph, the National Hurricane Center reported. Forecasts showed Dorian tracking toward Florida’s east coast …Forecasters believe the storm will strengthen into a Category 3 hurricane by Friday, and stay well east of the southern and central Bahamas before making a turn toward Florida by Sunday afternoon." When someone pointed out to the unrepentant Campbell, "What the heck is wrong with you. There are real people who live and work there," Campbell snapped back, "get a grip," tweeting, "As there are in Puerto Rico- sorry you don’t get snark- but Trump’s indifference to suffering is intolerable! We'd also help if he tackled climate change which is making hurricanes more destructive! Instead, he will remove limits on methane! Get a grip!" After the resignation of Brian Mulroney in 1993, Campbell served for roughly five months as prime minister. She currently serves as the chairperson for Canada's Supreme Court Advisory Board. The Conservative Party of Canada, founded in 1867, changed its name to the Progressive Conservative Party in 1942. After Campbell, a Progressive Conservative who was serving briefly as prime minister, lost in the 1993 election, the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party; the party regained the leadership in 2006 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who governed until 2015, when Justin Trudeau was elected to the position. After the party changed its name back to the Conservative Party, Campbell, complaining about the fact that the party did not subscribe to her environmentalist views, said, "Well, I’ve never joined the Conservative Party of Canada; I think (former prime minister) Joe Clark expressed it that he didn’t leave the party; the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative party. You know, our party was the party of the acid rain treaty, the Montreal protocol. I’m sorry; I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it." Asked whether she thought the Conservative party was "weak on that," Campbell answered, "Yeah, I do. They pussyfoot around, they don’t really come out and say, commit themselves to dealing with it, and they’ve produced a plan that has no target. It’s really a sop I think … if certain issues aren’t taken seriously, we don’t have time to hope for people, and if they’re saying things because they’re playing to a recalcitrant base, in theory, they’ll do differently, whatever, sorry, that’s too much of a risk."
  20. In an attempt at conversation and graciousness, I’ll give it another shot, and ask my questions in yet another way: What was the hypothesis that has been “settled"? Wasn't it that mankind’s activities are the primary cause of global warming — that global warming is happening due to mankind’s activities, and it would not be happening without those activities? That’s what it seems to have been? Was it that if mankind produces X amount of CO2 over time period Y, then the result must be temperature Z, and temperature Z will mean changes in climate, and catastrophic consequences? Here are the questions: How many years’ of data of CO2 emissions and temperatures were determined — prior to gathering that data — to be needed to be recorded in order to confirm the hypothesis, and why that amount of time? What duration of time was established as a falsification limit, after which the hypothesis would be considered to have failed if the predictions did not come true in reality, and why that amount of time? What other criteria were identified, ahead of testing, as falsifying the hypothesis? Why those criteria and not others? Or were none identified? Which one of the many climate computer models has succeeded in predicting future temperatures reliably and repeatedly? When — what date — was that single model proposed as one whose predictions were expected to succeed in reality? When did it become active, and its predictions began to be put to the test and compared to data collected in reality? Was the model unaltered, or, during testing, did it receive any revisions or updates? If so, on what grounds were those modifications deemed to be acceptable rather than as invalidating the original model? On what date was the conclusion determined that the model had met all of the criteria that had been established before testing, and that it had succeeded, had avoided falsification, and had been independently repeated and confirmed? Prior to all of that, how was it determined what the global temperature should be were it not for mankind’s activities? By what means and reasoning have natural drivers of temperature been accounted for and eliminated as affecting outcomes? More to come. But, please, start with the above. J
  21. It's just so adorable that you're suddenly concerned about someone tolerating dissent in regard to the Climate Doom™ issue. Hahahaha! J
  22. Wow, it's really cool to see Billy expressing curiosity, doubt, and critical thinking. Of course, the same question wouldn't occur to him if MSK had claimed that Global Warming Doom caused the fires, but selective curiosity is better than no curiosity. J
  23. People have forgotten about a bit of very important settled science from the past, and I think that we should get back to it: As long as we need to take immediate action to stop Climate Doom™, we should also revive the immediate action on population control. We've lost focus and have let the issue slide. It's still an imminent threat. We can't just forget about it because Ehrlich might have gotten one or two minor details wrong. He was generally right, and, as he believes, his only mistake was in being too optimistic in his predictions. We need to act now! J
  24. I wrote: No? No answers? No curiosity? Just tee hee hee? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller? I had heard that this was going to be the "Year of the Arctic!” here on OL, with “robust arguments” and donation prizes, excitement galore, and unbound enthusiasm for exploring, learning and lecturing all about arctic climate and its contributions to and indicators of the DOOM. Let’s see what we know, and have sleepover parties, and write essays, and scrapbook our favorite scary pictures of Earth on fire. But, suddenly, no interest whatsoever in my questions about the history and accuracy of predictions of alarmists’ uses of the issue of polar vortices? WTF? Why is that? Did I not know the rules? Were we supposed to limit ourselves to looking at only what we would be guided to look at, and to dare not consider any larger context or history? What gives? Why the 180? How did we go from full throttle to zero in half a second? J